Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/19/2002 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 29 DATE: November 19, 2002 FORTCOLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM Clark Mapes SUBJECT : Consideration of the Appeal of the September 25, 2002, decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the 616 South College Avenue, Waffle House Project Development Plan (PDP). RECOMMENDATI N: Council shouli consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, an I after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing Officer or(2) iphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On Septembe 30, 2002, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the subject Project Development Plan, which involves removing an existing Cluck-U fast-food chicken restaurant and constructing a new Waffle House restaurant. The property is an existing lot on the east side of College Av nue, between Myrtle and Laurel streets. The lot is bounded by the historic Darrah House next door to the north, and Outpost/Sunsport retail shop next door to the south, with an alley to the ea t. The area is zoned C-C, Community Commercial District. On October , 2002, the City Clerk's office received an Amended Notice of Appeal of the decision to ap rove the PDP. In this Appeal, from the Appellants Judith A. and Grant W. Reid, it is alleged th t: (1) The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing; and (2) The decision failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. The attached ocuments include: Attachment 1: Amended Notice of Appeal, received October 24, 2002, which supercedes the original Notice of Appeal received October 8, 2002 Attachment 2: City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing Officer Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attachment 3: City Staff memo in response to the appeal Attachment 4: Staff Report to the Administrative Hearing Officer for the public hearing Attachment 5: Minutes of the Meeting before the Administrative Hearing Officer, held January 16 and February 13, 2002 D E C E O d E D ATTACHMENT 1 OCT 2 � 2002 City Clerk i CITY CLERK October 24, 2002 City of Fort Collins AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL Action being Appealed: Findings, conclusions, and decisions on 616 So. College Avenue ( PDP- #17-02) The decision of approval with conditions was made on September 30, 2002. Appellants: Judith A. Reid, owner of Darrah House at 612 So. College which lies adjacent and to the north of 616 So. College. Phone number: 970-229-1527 Grant W. Reid, ASLA, husband of Darrah House owner and Landscape Architect. Phone numbers: hm 970-226-2963;wk 970-491-7098 Address of both appellants: 1020 Cunningham Drive#3, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Grounds for Appeal: 1) The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing. a) The established rules of procedure were not properly followed. Prior to the official hearing by the Hearing Officer, Linda C. Michow, Esq., no neighborhood meeting was called and no contact was made with the adjacent owners, Judith and Grant Reid,to show plans and elicit their input. Accordingly, the Reids had no time to investigate and digest proposals prior to the hearing. As a result, the hearing officer did not have the benefit of the Reids' response. b) Some evidence presented at the meeting was substantially false and misleading. The plan displayed by Land Images, Inc. showed the Darrah House to be significantly further away from the joint property line than is the case. This plan also showed the curb as it relates to the frontage property line in a significantly incorrect location. Note: Both of these misleading elements are relevant to the City Code of Article 3 - General Development Standards, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility. By authority of City Code, Section 2.48 (2)(c)"the right to rebut false or misleading evidence",the appellants are prepared to display a plan showing correct relationships. c) The decision maker failed to receive all relevant evidence. Sections 3.5.1 (A)and 3.5.1 (B) of the General Development Standards was substantially passed over by the decision maker because of the absence of evidence from appellants. • 2. The decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code. The appellants will present arguments and exhibits relevant to the following sections of the code that were improperly interpreted: Section 3.4.7 (E): Historic and Cultural Resources,New Construction. Section 3.5.1 (A): "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."Issues of kitchen exhaust fumes and odor were not properly considered. Section 3.5.1 (B): "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 in-fill development."Exhibit#1 is a re-designed site plan which addresses site planning aspects of the code referenced above. (Reduced copy filed with this appeal.) Section 3.5.1 (E)(1): `Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials."Exhibit#3 is an image of the historic Darrah House. Section 3.5.3 (D)(1): The appellants will present arguments regarding incompatibility of the proposed awning and will show compatible options(exhibit#2). Signed: Judith A. Re/cif Grant W. Reid . ��sr:.: •': •. .:' c AFP�� Ohl 17EGISIOlJ OLI Nora- ���N NDLISE (vl b S.6OLLEGt- a.V r- -PDP-617-02 l I L12. S.::GOLLea C. ILL14 4 '. trxlsr :Ex1aL - txIS7: : -spry-Ict... Volvo 12'MINIMUH. PUJhi � -6LrM'GK gIB 1 113WX ASH `PROFOGr-b \,/AFPLe HOUSE ' � I, _.. ' GIG '.y. C�LLtGC Av8. �• Rr-Mar . � •. _ j �w 1 i 1 i 1 - 1 user .: I 1.LH / WrIt7. Avri 4 OD ,�� EXI9'�IF.ICv RETAJL PUILDIIJG `��' I scn�e NagH ,:!: .P1 0[r4 CO MYM �-1 �. ��� is � '�.•✓' ��� I I L�l i �, p. : i iM• III / �. L� _ �_' _L�-. L— 1� _l IT, { `r�• { I i — � I I � I-'I ! i t _ n`\ ' AI I �- r1 _; - Bch - j •r r i GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP Attachment 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW - OWER 1, SUITE 1000 1 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER, COLORADO 80202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 I FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 LINDA C. MICHOW DIRECT DIAL: (oval 376-5061 email: Imichow@gorsuch.com October 1, 2002 Ms. Georgiana Deines Administrative Support Supervisor City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: 616 S. College Avenue PDP —#17-02 (Waffle House) Dear Georgians • Enclosed for your file, or for return to Land Images, Inc., please find the development plans for the above-captioned project. Respectfully yours, GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP 6�,1- yYIL,c. wt'- — Linda C. Michow LCM:cw Enclosure • LCM197069.20AD4713.01 GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWER 1, SUITE 1000 11515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER. COLORADO 80202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 I FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001 LINDA C. MICHOW DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376-5061 !lAlf email:lmichow@ gorsuch.c om September 30, 2002 Ms. Georgiana Deines Administrative Support Supervisor City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: 616 S. College Avenue PDP —#17-02 (Waffle House) Dear Georgiana: Enclosed please find the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision for the above-captioned project. We have also enclosed the audio tape, along with the original sign-in sheet from the September 25, 2002 hearing. Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Respectfully yours, GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP Linda C. Michow LCM:cw Enclosures RECEIVED 0CT 0 2 tin) CURRENT PLANNING LCMZ7069.22WO4713.01 Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ,a ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER City of Fort Collins TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: September 25, 2002 PROJECT NAME: 616 S. College Avenue — PDP —#17-02 APPLICANT: Land Images, Inc. 215 W. Magnolia Street, #202 Fort Collins, Colorado 80.521 OWNER: Dodge Holdings, Inc. 616 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 HEARING OFFICER: Linda C. Michow, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower I, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant has submitted a request to redevelop an existing .28 acre lot, demolishing an existing building formerly housing a Cluck-U fast food restaurant, and constructing a new building to contain a Waffle House restaurant (the 'Project'). The property, zoned Community-Commercial (CC), is located on the east side of College Avenue, between Myrtle and Laurel Streets, adjacent to the Darrah House on the north, and a retail shop on the south side. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval.with.conditions: - ZONE DISTRICT: Community-Commercial Zone District (CC).. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly noticed in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 25, 2002 in the City Planning Offices, conference rooms C & D, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. LC W57069.224122682.01 281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 •FAX(970)416-2020 City of Fort Collins—Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP—#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 2 RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department staff report and staff memo dated September 25, 2002; (2) application, plats, maps, reports and other supporting documents submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's agents to the City of Fort Collins; (3) various photographs and sketches of the Project in the context of other neighboring uses and buildings; and (4) a tape recording of testimony provided during the hearing. The Fort Collins Land Use Code ("LUC"), the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. ATTENDANCE AT HEARING: The hearing was attended by those individuals identified on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Applicant was represented by Michael Chalona of Land Images; Walter Barineau, Barry Cowart, and Ken Williams of Waffle House, and Todd Rogers, attorney for Waffle House. FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. The Project is in Compliance with Article 2, Administration: Pursuant to Section 2.2.8 of the LUC, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds that the record reflects that all of the procedural requirements and development review procedures for development applications and project development plans have been met with respect to this Project. 2. The Proposed Use Is a Permitted Use within the Community-Commercial (CC) Zone District: The staff report indicates, and Section 4.17(13)(2)(c)(2) of the LUC provides, that the proposed land use; as a standard restaurant, is a permitted use in the C-C zone district, subject to administrative review. No evidence presented at the hearing contradicts this finding, although Judith Reid, owner of the Darrah House, questioned the odor, noise and fumes that the proposed use would emit. The Applicant testified in response that: (1) the ventilation system is designed to minimize odors, (2) no deep fryers are used and (3) there will be no outdoor seating to contribute to the noise. LCMI.67069.224122682.01 City of Fort Collins—Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP —#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The Project is in compliance with CC District Standards (Division 4.14): Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Project complies with all applicable provisions of Division 4.14 of the LUC. Specifically, the land use standard set forth in subsection (E)(2)(d), the only applicable standard, requires that all buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet. The staff report and testimony of staff indicate that the proposed Waffle House building technically complies with the minimum 20-feet height standard in that the peaked portion of the roof is twenty feet in height, even though the remainder of the building is approximately fifteen feet in height. There was no evidence or testimony presented to oppose this finding. 4. The Project is or will be in Compliance with Article 3 — General Development Standards: • The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the Project complies, or will comply based on conditions of approval, with all of the. applicable requirements of Article 3, as explained below. The staff report indicates that the Project complies with Article 3, except with respect to architectural design issues concerning the building. For this reason, City staff initially recommended denial of the Project. Clark Mapes, the City's planner, testified at the hearing that a subsequent meeting with the applicant on the day of the hearing served to resolve the architectural and design issues of the Project. Mr. Mapes stated that, with certain conditions of approval, as outlined in his memo dated September 25, 2002, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 13, he could recommend approval of the Project. Mr. Mapes outlined the following, applicable standards of Article 3 which, until the date of the hearing, had not been met by the Applicant: Section 3.4.7(A), (B) & (E), with respect to preserving historical resources; Section 3.5.1, with respect to building and project compatibility; and Section 3.5.3, with respect to urban design characteristics of the CC district. As Mr. Mapes testified and as set forth in the LUC, Section 3.4.7(A) provides that one of the purposes of the standard is intended to ensure that new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties . in the surrounding neighborhood and to protect designated or eligible historic LCM\57069.224422682.01 City of Fort Collins—Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP —#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 4 structures and structures in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the project site. Section 3.4.7(B) further provides that "new buildings must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic buildings, whether on the project site or adjacent thereto." The uncontroverted evidence indicates that the Project is directly adjacent to the Darrah House, which, as Mr. Mapes testified, is a structure "eligible" for federal, state and local historic designation. Photographs of the Darrah House reveal the historic features of the structure. It is the City's position that the initial design of the Waffle House Project did not adequately address or respect the historic character of the Darrah House because of its flat, uniform concrete block facade. In response to this concern, the Applicant submitted revised site plan drawings at the hearing, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, that accomplishes the following: ■ adds a concrete window sill of a different color from the building facade under the window sills to define the windows; ■ adds stripes along the upper windows and awnings to define the upper windows; ■ incorporates block pieces between every two panes of window glass to break up the monotonous window front; ■ adds a cornice treatment on the top element of the building which protrudes 4"from the block face; ■ adds pilasters to the north wall; • adds two sign friezes; and ■ uses split face CMU block building. The Applicant tested that while certain features, such as the sign friezes, are not required by the City's regulations, it was willing nonetheless to redesign portions of the Project to address the City's concerns. Clark Mapes agreed that features, such as sign friezes, are not specifically required by the Land Use Code, but that the overall intent of the applicable regulations is to protect historic LCM\57069.22W22682.01 City of Fort Collins—Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP —#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 5 resources in the City and to ensure that new buildings contribute to the unique character of the CC zone district. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the applicable provisions of the City's land use regulations in the context of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. While certain provisions of the LUC contain broad statements about compatibility, the regulations also provide specific standards and, thus, sufficient guidance to review the Applicant's Project in relation to the LUC regulations. For instance, Section 3.5.3(D) provides: building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of the zone district...with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context...A standardized prototype design shall be modified if necessary to meet the provisions of this Land Use Code. (emphasis added) This subsection further supplies examples and explanations of this requirement, including without limitation the following: (6) Base and Top Treatments. All facades shall have: (a) a recognizable base consisting of(but not limited to): 1. thicker walls, ledges, or sills; 2. integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry; 3. integrally colored and patterned materials such as smooth-finished stone or tile; 4. lighter or darker colored materials, mullions or panels; or 5. planters. (b) a recognizable "top" consisting of(but not limited to): 1. cornice treatments, other than just colored "stripes" or "bands", with integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry or differently colored materials; LCM\57089.224422682.01 City of Fort Collins —Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP —#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 6 2. sloping roof with overhang and brackets; 3. stepped parapets. Short of depicting the above examples through illustrations in the LUC, the regulations do provide sufficient detail and guidance to require the Applicant to enhance the design of the Waffle House building with more architectural features than the standard Waffle House prototype. And, consistent with these requirements, City staff provided the Applicant with examples of architectural detailing and characteristics, as set forth in Attachments 10, 11 and 12 of the Staff Report. The Hearing Officer notes that features such as window sills, individual windows with trim details, sign friezes, and a top element are depicted in Attachments 10, 11 and 12 of the staff report. The Applicant has agreed to add these types of features as reflected in the revised site plan, attached as Exhibit C. In addition, the Applicant has agreed to incorporate a sign frieze on the south and west walls of the building consistent with the illustrations depicted on attached Exhibit D. The Hearing Officer finds that this revised site plan meets the standards and intent of Article 3 of the LUC. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Waffle House Project, PDP #17-02, satisfies the land use standards of the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District, subject to the conditions of approval stated below. B. The Project complies with the administrative and procedural requirements set forth in Division 2.1, Division 2.2 and Division 2.4 of Article 2, Administration. C. The Project meets the applicable requirements of Article 3, General Development Standards, including but not limited to sections 3.4.7 and 3.5.3, subject to the conditions of approval stated below. DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Hearing Officer hereby approves the Waffle House PDP, No. 17-02, 616 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado subject to the following conditions of approval: LCML57069.224422682.01 . City of Fort Collins—Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision 616 S. College Avenue - PDP—#17-02 Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002 Page 7 1. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval, with the exception of item number 2, specified in Clark Mapes' memo dated September 25, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. The Applicant shall design and construct the building in conformance with the Applicant's revised site plan submitted on September 25, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. The Applicant shall design, construct and incorporate two sign frieze panels, one on the south wall and one on the west wall of the building, in conformance with the illustrations attached hereto as Exhibit D and as approved by City of Fort Collins Planning Staff. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable development standards set forth in Article 3 of the LUC, including but not limited to, section 3.5.1(1) concerning mechanical equipment screening. DATED THIS 30t' day of September, 2002. / k-azg Linda C. Michow, Hearing Officer LCM\57069.22M22682.01 WOL9le- LLre, �t)alTlc Now �BcL r cowa, r l �N ��IIA-1i1.5 11/7 � hand �w`re� �CS Lama r�we C �c� O Foti CoLL is aliLiiies/Sln nw..�--r A Fo-r+ Cr Ul os 91\8 icy ,'1� Cxk.Ak A& s ` aq-y 4 For+ Go W"s p to v.v L Steve o• �y ,a - r;rsr 5 �c �ny/c �T �tlJ1 �o�(;J, — awv" /CHI I—APD C) 13,4E Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins 9.25.02 To: Interested Parties Fm: Clark Mapes, Project Planner RE: Staff Recommendation for 9.25.02 Hearing Staff acknowledges the response to comments presented by the applicants today in an informal meeting. In general, staff agrees that the revised building design adequately responds to the comments, and so staff is now able to recommend approval if the following conditions are met: }�Add a note to the plans that no signage shall be placed on the north face of the building. • ( 2/Provide the clarified sign frieze detail as discussed between staff and the applicant. 3. Change the texture of the masonry above the sill, on the western portion of the building to ground face block, as a compromise to using brick as a more refined and urban material than split face block. 4. Specify a rust or bronze color for the window structures. 281 North College Avenue • PO.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376 FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-60M • E-mail:aplanning@fcgov.com H{y'�fa EXTM- us v I Ex Drl" Ex.Cawreb Welk 1 Proposed Waffle House rraehEnGware -Now1 1806 SF I Concrete 1 Entry. I _.-„� c <s Service Area r to Q i �rSConcrete Asplwtt Parft 1 � Par41e1PMig(tgj3)1e �' r Lot C.Noled I. - 8„ c x Via✓ e . I Staub F%ntlnps Around ftrking Lot 3t? Vhals Maws RSMausnl 1 _, 1 Pob Lights _ _ 1 Ex Canasta W 6%&Colaq AnOutpost$UnSPOrt �•tamates)auelopromtL n alk LJ- 11, Illustrative Site Plan 0 41 24 LAND(NAGELfNC'- 8�.:,.. II IM�. t� I tli�.til T I III r .. '•_ r �. - ...,..Ww I ""'., !, ben6146'6@I.�'ArnWWRi `.:nev,Ym:w anm s.xa�a _.. �• ^� N • main a�[mmau as axaa�x.uxx>a a'r atmumerslNma4®e en s k; k t G pear !°I 4 ®iH R wry `'T ,.. ,RR rrrrsa...nmm,...ror®.Ran.�.�. a :eaAwmRa�.a.s.eaarex.®�+.xio-.a®m..caxcwo.� �llx PTT East Side Elevation MpIr OR.�RRRRs rr 6 -BIAS, . r I Z� ��►�'�q I t I s ��� i.. ia? � Sidi. - r , . - _ __. f _. � �w i'v.c� i � Attachment 3 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner THRU: Joe Frank,Director of Advance Plannin Cameron Gloss, Director of Curr 't nni • Greg Byrne,Director of C.P.E.S' - John Fischbach, City Manager DATE: November 6,2002 RE: Appeal of 616-S. College, Waffle House Project Development Plan This memorandum is Staff s response to an Appeal of the Findings, Conclusions,and Decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer approving the 616 S. College, Waffle House Project Development Plan (PDP)dated September 30, 2002. The detailed allegations define three main questions for Council to consider: 1) Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing? and 2) Was evidence presented at the hearing that was false or grossly misleading? 3) Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,or does new evidence presented by the appellants wan-ant reconsideration of the decision? The first question regarding a fair hearing has to do with required notification of neighbors. However, the notification requirements and established rules of procedure were clearly met. Based on a conversation with the appellants, staff understands that this allegation involves a misunderstanding about the requirements. The second question involves an allegation that certain dimensions on the site plan were incorrectly drawn. The third question involves consideration of certain Land Use Code standards regarding building compatibility. Paraphrasing the standards, they require new construction to be designed to be in character with existing historic structures. This was emphasized heavily in the staff report to the Hearing Officer; and it was discussed and negotiated extensively in the hearing. There is significant • room for interpretation because of the differences between the historic wooden house and the new chain restaurant. Staff is not aware of any one who contends the new building must be a wooden 281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221.6376 FAX(970)224-6111 •TDD(970)22460M • E-mail:aplanning@fcgov.com house with a front yard which REPLICATES the historic house. Instead,the new building should " have a traditional type and amount of detailing designed with compatibility in mind. The Staff Report suggested some specific ways to achieve this. (The Waffle House applicants had asked staff to offer such specific suggestions.) The appellants now advocate additional ways to respond to the standards, including toning down awning colors and moving the proposed building back from the sidewalk to provide a front yard shrub bed. These ideas have merit in light of the relevant standards. After answering the questions above, the decision for Council is whether the PDP approval should be: a)modified with conditions to be addressed in Final Compliance plans;b)remanded back to the Hearing Officer; or c) overturned,resulting in denial of the PDP. Permissible Grounds for Appeal Chapter 2, Article II,Division 3 Section 2-48 of the City Code states the permissible grounds for appeal, as follows. The portions are alleged by the Appellants as grounds for the appeal: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated,the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) MIN WBM (2) is t a) The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b) c) . d) m Page 2 of 6 . This Anneal Appellants: Judith A. and Grant W. Reid 1020 Cunningham Drive#3 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Owners of the Darrah House, next door to the proposed Waffle House Complete Alleeations: The Appellant's complete allegations are quoted below, as "bold quotations",with Staff s response to each allegation in italics. The allegations are listed in the order of the Permissible Grounds for Appeal as listed above. "The decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. The appellants will present arguments and exhibits relevant to the following sections of the ccode that were improperly interpreted: Section 3.4.7 (E): Historic and Cultural Resources,New Construction." Staff Response: This standard calls for new construction to be designed to be in character with existing historic structures. It was emphasized heavily in the staff report to the Hearing Officer,- and it was discussed and negotiated extensively in the hearing. Staff found the PDP to adequately comply with this standard at the hearing. Again, the appellants offer additional ways • to respond to this standard as explained earlier in this memo. For convenient reference, this complete standard reads as follows: (E)New Construction. (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height,setback and width of new buildings shall be similar to those of existing historic buildings on the same block. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller buildings or portions ofbuilding shall be located interior to the site. Buildings at the ends ofblocks shall be ofa similar height to buildings in the adjoining blocks. (2)New buildings shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures, but not be an imitation of historic styles.Horizontal elements,such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands,shall be aligned with those of existing historic buildings to strengthen the visual ties among buildings.,Window patterns of existing buildings(size, height, number)shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.See Figure 6. (3) The dominant building material ofexisting historic buildings adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity ofthe proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. Page 3 of 6 "Section 3.5.1 (A): `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.' Issues of kitchen exhaust fumes and odor were not properly considered." Staff Response: The appellants asked about this in the hearing. The Waffle House representatives replied that there is a heavy duty ventilation system to the outside with filters designed to minimize odors. No standard is being violated by the PDP on this issue. "Section 3.5.1 (B): `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 in-Fill development.' Exhibit#1 is a re-designed site plan which addresses site planning aspects of the code referenced above." Staff Response: Similar to 3.4.7 above, this standard calls for new construction to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of an adjacent historic property, with compatible new buildings. This standard was covered in the hearing, but again the appellants advocate additional ways to achieve this. "Section 3.5.1 (E)(1): `Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or,if dissimilar materials are being proposed,other characteristics such as scale and proportions,form, architectural detailing,color and texture,shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials.' Exhibit#3 is an image of the historic Darrah House." Staff Response: these issues permeated the discussion at the hearing. Again, the appellants advocate additional ways to achieve this. "Section 3.5.3(D)(1): The appellants will present arguments regarding incompatibility of the proposed awning and will show compatible options (exhibit#2)." Staff Response: This standard calls for the 'features and color range of a new building to be tailored specifically to the site and its context." It further states that "a standardized prototype design shall be modified if necessary to meet the provisions of this Land Use Code." The awning colors were discussed at the hearing. The awning has very bright colors conveying an attention-grabbing corporate image rather than a tailored response to the local context. At the hearing, Staff did not pursue this issue because a) the fabric is a changeable finish item rather than permanent architecture; b) attention had been focused on more integral architectural characteristics including some other architectural aspects of the awning; c) the awning is a positive feature of the building; and d) the standard is somewhat subjective, and Page 4 of 6 Staff simply did not find the colors to be a significant enough issue to warrant the effort to seek another set of colors. At the hearing, staff noted all of these points. Staff also acknowledged the merit of the concern, and noted that the hearing was "a good time and place to address it". However, at the hearing the idea simply did not rise to the level of requiring the Waffle House applicants to change the colors. "The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing. The established rules of procedure were not properly followed. Prior to the official hearing by the Hearing Officer,Linda C. Michow,Esq., no neighborhood meeting was called and no contact was made with the adjacent owners,Judith and Grant Reid,to show plans and elicit their input. Accordingly the Reids had no time to investigate and digest proposals prior to the hearing. As a result the hearing officer did not have the benefit of the Reids' response." Staff Response: The established ruled of procedure were properly followed for this Administrative Type 1 Hearing. Signs were properly posted on the property, advance notice of the hearing was mailed as required, and required notice was published in the local newspaper. No neighborhood meeting is required, nor is any additional contact with the adjacent land owners. "Some evidence presented at the meeting was substantially false and misleading. The plan displayed by Land Images,Inc. showed the Darrah House to be significantly further away from the joint property line than is the case. This plan also showed the curb as it relates to the frontage property line in a significantly incorrect location. Note: Both of these misleading elements are relevant to the City Code of Article 3—General Development Standards, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility. By authority of City Code, Section 2.48 (2)(c) `the right to rebut false or misleading evidence',the appellants are prepared to display a plan showing correct relationships." Staff Response: The exact dimensions provided by the appellants would have had no effect on staff's review of the project. The front sidewalk is apparently about 21 feet wide rather than about 26 feet as the project plan.shows and the house next door is about 23 feet from the Waffle House building rather than 29 feet as portrayed on the project plan. Staff contends the project plan adequately illustrates the essential relationships, i.e. it shows the existing house next door with its yard; and it shows the new building placed next to the existing sidewalk. The incorrect dimensions were not apparent to staff without measuring, and do not affect the essential relationships. Staff had visited the site; and plans were supplemented with clear photos provided to the Hearing Officer showing these relationships. Page 5 of 6 "The decision maker failed to receive all relevant evidence. Sections 3.5.1 (A) and 3.5.1 (B) of the General Development Standards was substantially passed over by the decision maker because of the absence of evidence from appellants." Staff Response: The Hearing Officer carefully and thoroughly solicited and received all relevant evidence offered at the hearing. The Hearing Officer did not fail to receive any relevant evidence offered at the hearing. Staff understands that this allegation flows from the appellants'perspective that they did not offer the evidence they would have had,IF they had been involved prior to the hearing. However, that is a different problem—the Hearing Officer did not fail to receive evidence offered by the appellants, because as the appellants state, it was absent. This appears to be a misunderstanding of this ground for appeal. Staff Conclusion Staff has carefully considered the appeal, including follow-up discussion with the applicants. Staff acknowledges the merit of the applicant's ideas for additional ways to enhance compatibility of the new building. Staff's position at the hearing was that the PDP adequately complied with the relevant standards. If Council decides that new evidence warrants reconsideration, staff recommends remanding the item to the Hearing officer for rehearing. The most effective way to address the issues would be collaboration between the appellants and the Waffle House applicants,which could occur prior to the rehearing. Page 6 of 6 Attachment 4 ITEM NO. ° MEETING DATE r� STAFF City of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02 [Type I Administrative Hearing] APPLICANT: Land Images Inc. c/o Michael Chalona 215 W. Magnolia St., #202 Ft. Collins, CO, 80521 OWNER: Dodge Holdings Inc. 616 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request redevelop a Cluck-U fast-food chicken restaurant to a Waffle House restaurant including demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building. The property is an existing .28 acre lot, on the east side of College Ave., between Myrtle and Laurel streets. The lot is bounded by the historic Darrah House next door to the north, and Outpost/Sunsport retail shop next door to the south, with an alley to the east. The area is zoned C-C, Community Commercial District. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This project has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC) and found to be in compliance with some, but not all, of the Standards. The only significant outstanding issue from Staffs review of the project is the architectural design of the proposed building. This is the reason behind Staff's recommendation of denial. Staff contends that the P.D.P. does not comply with the applicable General Development Standards for Mixed Use and Commercial Buildings found in Section 3.5.3, nor does it comply • with compatibility standards of Section 3.4.7 for development adjacent to Historic Resources. These two sections complement one another heavily in this case, to require building design consistent with the C-C District. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02 September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 2 The applicant contends that the building complies with the standards. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Compliance with General Development Standards in Article 3: Planning issues are limited to a few particular sections of the Land Use Code (LUC), because this application involves a small existing developed lot, within a complete street network, in an area characterized by building orientation, pedestrian access, and parking lot layouts consistent with the approach of the Land Use Code. The basic layout of the development complies with standards for these basic site design considerations. Questions remain on a number of engineering details (e.g. grading, utilities, paving, and plan sheets themselves). However, all such questions can be addressed in Final Compliance plans if this PDP is approved. The non-compliance issues involve the building design. General Comments. The architecture is essentially a suburban, strip mall pad design. Staff contends that it should be more tailored to this Fort Collins Community Commercial district, with more prominent detail characteristics to complement the historic character of the adjacent Darrah House. This would then serve to meet general standards for Mixed Use and Commercial Buildings as well. These different considerations would work well together to shape a building design consistent with the CC zone district. The CC zone district is for mixed-use town centers, as distinctly opposed to suburban shopping center-type development. Fort Collins'Comprehensive Plan language on CC districts includes: "The physical environment will provide a high quality urban life...with vertical mixed use encouraged...uniquely distinct, identifiable places...architectural character of individual buildings will be coordinated and contribute to a coherent identity and sense of place...building massing...should relate to nearby buildings and the urban context..." Staff has suggested that an architect or building designer should develop a site-specific design based on an understanding of the context and the standards. This has not occurred. Rather, a peak feature and stripes of contrasting concrete block have been added to the stock design as a minimal response. There is plenty of latitude to accommodate the large differences between the proposed commercial building and the existing residential structure, without direct imitation of the historic style. However, within this latitude, the proposed commercial building should be in more in character with the historic context. Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02 September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 3 The overall urban context on this block face and the facing block (across College Ave.) includes a truly eclectic mix of styles. However, with this property (as"presently developed) the striking exception, this block of College Avenue has a consistent urban character and identity commonly known as Midtown. All other Midtown buildings face the street directly. Buildings and landscaped yards, rather than parking lots, occupy the majority or entirety of each property. The proposed building is an exception, and faces its parking lot. Staff s position has agreed that this could be acceptable given the existing function of the site with its existing parking lot, however, this makes the urban design of the building along the street edge more important, i.e., it needs to be designed as a "front", with details that contribute to the uniqueness and pedestrian orientation of the district. Comments on Specific Standards. 3.4.7(A)(2) - The building design does not adequately respect the historic character of the adjacent building, and adversely affects the integrity of the resource, with form and detailing typical of a suburban shopping center. 3.4.7(B) - The building design does not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic property, and is not compatible with the historic character. 3.4.7(E)(2) - The building is not in character with the existing historic structure. The flat, uniform concrete block fagade from bottom to top does not comply with the standard. The developer has asked Staff to suggest what detail elements would need to be added. Staff s suggestions have included the following: - an overhanging, 3-dimensional cornice where a flat roof is used; and overhanging eaves with trim, fascia, brackets, where a sloped roof is used. - prominent, 3-dimensional sills under windows. Precast concrete products would work well for sills and cornices. - brick rather than block above the sill to differentiate the base and introduce a smaller, more traditional module. - prominent architectural window trim, painted or colored. - some kind of frieze panel, where signage could go, defined by detailing in the masonry and possibly with appropriate architectural lighting. - ending the awning at the north edge of the building, to emphasize the major difference and transition between the north and south sides of the building. In addition, it projects past the property line. Hardiplank siding was added onto the back of the peak feature relate to the clapboard siding on the Darrah House. Staff has suggested that this does not accomplish that intended purpose, so it should not be included merely for the sake of response to comments. Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02 September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 4 Attachments 7,8, and 9 show the context. Attachments 10, 11, and 12 show the ideas for detailing and characteristics that have been discussed in response to questions from the developer. 3.5.1 (B) —The new development does not use an architectural design that is complementary to the established architectural character, as explained above. 3.5.3(D)(1) —The building design does not contribute to the uniqueness of the CC district with urban design characteristics that the standards require. Materials and elements are not adequately tailored specifically to the site and its CC District context. 3.5.1 (I)(3) and (6) —The applicant has not responded to specific questions about the location of rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment and the need to screen such equipment in compliance with these code sections. Depending on the answer, which must be determined at the hearing due to the unusual scheduling, there may or may not be an issue. Plans and elevations do not show any rooftop mechanical equipment. Is it all contained within the structure? It needs to be, so that it is not seen from above (upper floors of existing or future buildings in the area) or from the ground. Any vents, conduit, meters, etc. that protrude from the architecture must be painted to match. 4.14(E)(2) d -The 20-foot minimum height standard is to define the street as a space - as a wall defines a room as a space - and to add architectural interest consistent with the zone district. As discussed, it is not to add small peak elements onto otherwise low buildings. The building technically meets the minimum 20-foot height standard. The wording allows for a low-slung building to meet the minimum height if a narrow point is added anywhere on the building. Therefore, staff is not requesting revisions based on the height standard. However, additional height along the street may be needed to provide room for the design revisions noted in the previous text. 2. Compliance with the C-C Zone District in Article 4: The land use, standard restaurant, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. The C-C district contains only one applicable standard, 4.14(E)(2)(b), requiring a 20- foot minimum building height, and the proposed building complies, based on a narrow technical interpretation of the standard. 3. Findine of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave., P.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: . Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02 September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing Page 5 A. The land use, standard restaurant, is permitted in the Community Commercial zone district as an Administrative Review. B. The P.D.P. complies with applicable General Development Standards with the exception of 3.4.7(A)(2); 3.5.1 (B); and 3.5.3(D)(1). An outstanding question remains regarding compliance with 3.5.1 (I)(3) and (6). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Waffle House, 616 College Ave. PDP. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Contextual Site Plan Attachment 2—Site Plan Attachment 3 —Landscape Plan Attachment 4—Site Lighting Plan Attachments 5 & 6—Building Elevations Attachment 7 —Photos of Adjacent Historic Building Attachments 8&9—Photos of Context Attachment 10, 11, &12—Graphics Showing Detail Elements Discussed s Attachment 5 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 17-02 WAFFLE HOUSE PROJECT Wednesday, September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing Officer: Linda Michow 2 1 THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD: 2 MS . MICHOW: I 'm going to call to order the 3 administrative hearing for the Waffle House Project at 616 4 South College 'Avenue. Project Development Plan No. 17-02 . 5 Today is Wednesday, September 25th. And we are 6 currently in the City of Fort Collins Administration 7 Building at 281 North College Avenue in Fort Collins . 8 My name is Linda Michow and I will be the 9 administrative hearing officer for tonight's hearing. I am 10 a land use and municipal attorney in Denver, Colorado, and I 11 sit as the hearing officer pursuant to the City of Fort 12 Collins Land Use Development Project. 13 I 'm going to outline the procedures for tonight' s 14 hearing. And as you can tell, this is being tape-recorded 15 and that in case there is an appeal of this decision, we 16 need to keep a record of it. 17 I 'm going to start off the presentation with the 18 presentation from plaintiff' s staff. Then the advocate will 19 have an opportunity to present. And then we' ll have any 20 testimony from anyone in the public who wishes to speak in 21 favor of or against the project. 22 We' ll then have a response from the advocate to 23 any questions or concerns raised by the staff or anyone in 24 the public. And then we' ll have staff give any other 25 comments for additional statements they'd like to make. 3 1 I 'm going to ask that you state your name and 2 spell your last name for the record. And if you could just 3 tell me whether you' re for the applicant or a neighbor or 4 what your relationship to the project is, that would be 5 helpful as well. 6 After the hearing, I 'm going to be issuing 7 written findings and conclusions . And I will be doing that 8 within ten days of tonight' s hearing. 9 Do we have a deadline closer to that? Did the 10 applicant request a decision sooner? 11 SPEAKER: There was something in September. 12 There was something about a September time frame. 13 SPEAKER: We'd love to give them within -- we' d 14 love to give them about 30, but that' s cutting it kind of 15 close. 16 SPEAKER: It gives you a weekend. 17 SPEAKER: I think if we could get them by the 18 Friday of that week, that would be sufficient. 19 MS. MICHOW: Okay. 20 SPEAKER: If possible. 21 MS. MICHOW: If possible, I ' ll try. 22 With that, does anyone have any questions with 23 respect to the procedure for tonight ' s hearing? 24 Okay. I will open it up for the presentation by . 25 plaintiff' s staff. Who'd like to start? 4 1 SPEAKER: This is a request to redevelop a 2 Cluck-U fast food chicken house to a waffle house, including 3 demolition of the existing building and construction of a 4 new building. 5 The property is an existing . 28 acre lot on the 6 east side of College Avenue between Myrtle and Laurel 7 streets, founded by the historic Dara House next door to the 8 north and Outpost Sun Store retail shop next door to the 9 south with an alley to the east, zoned CC, community 10 commercial district. 11 Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with 12 the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. And the 13 only significant outstanding issue from our review is the 14 architectural design of the proposed building. 15 Staff is recommending denial of the project based 16 on that review. 17 There' s one unusual factor about this hearing 18 which relates to the procedure we just talked about. That 19 is that we scheduled a hearing at this time because there is 20 a real particular deadline on the applicant' s side with the 21 contracts and so forth, so we scheduled the hearing based on 22 the last submittal of plans and those plans generated a 23 significant number of comments from the city. 24 And ordinarily we would schedule this hearing 25 after all those comments had been addressed and resolved and 5 I so forth. But, again, you know, we' re accommodating the 2 special case of this schedule. And because we felt like 3 there was no harm in doing so, that it would be reasonable 4 to do so, went ahead and scheduled the hearing. 5 And so today we had an informal meeting with the 6 applicants, and we are satisfied that with some conditions 7 that we need to talk about at this hearing, and, frankly, 8 I 'm not even exactly sure how that fits in with the normal 9 procedure, to discuss the last few conditions . 10 But they substantially have responded to the 11 comments on which staff was basing a recommendation of 12 denial on. Four conditions, which I believe are minor, 13 staff is now prepared to list off the standards that we felt 14 were not being complied with and support the project. 15 So if you have a staff report recommending denial 16 based on the plans we had when we scheduled the hearing, 17 there is some new information as of today that I have 18 available that I can give to you that states that all the 19 architectural criteria that is listed in the staff report we 20 feel have adequately met those conditions. That if they 21 agree to that, they would support the project. 22 MS. MICHOW: And that reminds me, too, why 23 don' t we enter into the record the staff report and anything 24 that' s here tonight in terms of evidence. That will all be 25 made a part of the record for the hearing. And one other 6 1 matter I need to ask about is whether any notices were 2 required and if they've been complied with. 3 SPEAKER: Yes, there is required notice of this 4 meeting and that has been done. 5 MS. MICHOW: Okay, publication -- 6 SPEAKER: It' s publication and a mailing. And if 7 posting is required, that it' s been done. 8 MS. MICHOW: I 'm asking. I 'm not sure if it has 9 been or not. 10 SPEAKER: Yeah. The front staff handled that. 11 And if it' s required, I 'm sure that it' s been done. And I 12 know we sent the mailer and did the required publications . 13 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Do you want to go through and 14 just outline what concerns you had and how the applicant is 15 addressing those to staff' s satisfaction. 16 SPEAKER: Okay. The planning issues in our 17 review were limited to a few particular sections of the Land 18 Use Code because this application involved the small 19 existing lot within a complete existing street network in an 20 area characterized in general by pedestrian access, parking 21 lot layouts, building orientation, which is consistent with 22 the approach of the Land Use Code. 23 Staff has found that the basic layout of the 24 development plan complies with the standards for basic site 25 design considerations . 7 • 1 To the extent the questions remain on a number of 2 engineering details regarding the grading, utility, paving 3 and the plan sheets themselves, staff agrees that all those 4 questions can be addressed in final compliance plans if this 5 PDP, this project development plan is approved tonight. 6 Again, the issue is whether or not compliance 7 have involved the building design. Generally from the 8 beginning staff has contended that the architecture is 9 essentially a suburban strip mall pad design and that it 10 needs to be tailored more to this Fort Collins community 11 commercial district with more prominent detailed 12 characteristics, to complement the historic character of the • 13 Tara House and then adding those detailed characteristics to 14 compliment the house next door also would serve to meet the 15 general standards in the Land Use Code for mixed use of 16 commercial buildings with different considerations, would 17 work very well to shape a building consistent with the CC 18 building descriptions . 19 I mentioned the CC zone district in the 20 conference plan. And the background of that you will note 21 briefly here. It' s for mixed use town centers. And the 22 language is distinctly opposed to a suburban shopping center 23 type development. 24 It' s described in a term such as physical • 25 environment to provide high quality urban life with vertical 8 1 mixed use, encouraged uniquely distinct identifiable places, 2 architectural character of individual buildings to be 3 coordinated, contribute to a coherent identity and sense of 4 place. Building massing should relate to nearby buildings 5 in the urban context. 6 This is a zoned district specifically written for 7 downtown or downtown-like situations . In this case it' s got 8 a pretty clear identity. We want to acknowledge there' s 9 plenty of latitude to accommodate the large differences 10 between the historical house next door and this clearly 11 modern commercial building without directly imitating the 12 historic style. That's not the point, however, within that 13 broad latitude both commercial buildings need to be more in 14 character with the contents . 15 The overall urban context on this block both 16 sides of the college includes a truly eclectic mix of 17 styles. And styles is never the point in our reviews, 18 however, this property with the Cluck-U property as a 19 striking exception, there is also a consistent urban 20 character and identity. All the other midtown buildings 21 face the street directly, that is, building faces and 22 landscape yards unless the buildings are right on the 23 sidewalk. So the majority of frontage of every property is 24 that rather than parking lots. 25 The proposed building' s an exception, face the 9 1 parking lot, however, our position is that we've agreed that 2 this is acceptable given the existing function of the site 3 with its parking lot. And, in fact, there is a lot straight 4 to the entrance, however, this exception we believe may 5 clearly design the front of the building along the street 6 edge even more important, or particularly important, given 7 that it doesn' t have the normal entrance facing the 8 sidewalk, which is typical of the district and it' s a pretty 9 fundamental urban design use originally. 10 So we' re beyond asking the applicants to turn the 11 building or put a door on it. But that' s a consideration in 12 everything else that we've talked about. Again, pointing 13 to the uniqueness of this district, the pedestrian 14 orientation so on and so forth. 15 Specific standards, 3 . 4 . 7 A2, compatibility with 16 historic resources, said that we need to find that the 17 building adequately meets -- that the building respects the 18 historic character of the adjacent building and does not 19 adversely affect the integrity of the resource. 20 We find that that standard has not been met, 21 although, again, it' s been a relatively uniform design of a 22 split-face concrete block around the top with some stripes 23 of a different color but without much three dimensional . 24 projection or recessed details such as sills, harnesses and 25 so forth. 10 1 Had the plans not been clear on the detailing 2 around windows, those are things that have been addressed in 3 plans that we saw today. There is a top element pattern. 4 It' s a top band that' s functioned. (Inaudible. ) Detailing 5 the windows as clarified with masonry as a divider between 6 sets of windows . Those are some of the things that again we 7 feel have helped to address this . 8 The building needs to -- building design needs to 9 be found to protect and enhance the historical and 10 architectural value of the adjacent historic property. The 11 building needs to be in compliance with (inaudible) includes 12 (inaudible) the character of the historic structure. 13 As I mentioned a flat and uniform concrete block 14 facade, we talked about. 15 And in response to applicant' s questions and 16 discussions with the applicant, we have provided 17 suggestions. (Inaudible. ) 18 You know, they had asked what do we have to do to 19 make this building comply? In response to that we suggested 20 an overhanging three-dimensional cornice where a flat roof 21 fused. And overhanging eaves with trim, fascia, possibly 22 brackets and so forth. (Inaudible. ) We asked for prominent 23 three-dimensional windows such as with precast concrete 24 products that would go well with the concrete block. We 25 asked for brick rather than block above the sills to 11 1 differentiate the base from the rest of the building. And 2 to introduce smaller and more traditional module than the 3 concrete block. 4 We asked the prominent architectural window trim 5 painted in color. We asked for some kind of frieze panel 6 above the windows and above the awning where there' s a part 7 that ' s essentially flat . A typical situation occupying 8 downtown buildings. There was no detail beyond that that ' s 9 been completely taken care of. 10 In all cases the plans -- the building design 11 that we saw today addresses all of those things except for 12 the brick. And to the extent that it' s not clear on the 13 plans, particularly regarding the sort of frieze panel 14 detail above the awning, was not clear on the plan that you 15 saw there. 16 I don' t know if you've had added it . Can I ask 17 the applicants did you have the detail we agreed on, on any 18 drawings? 19 SPEAKER: We have not. 20 SPEAKER: Okay. That was one that the frieze 21 panel is a pretty significant part of the building and they 22 added something above the awning to do this. And it wasn' t 23 clear just exactly how it was working. (Inaudible. ) And so 24 we talked quite a bit about that being more integrated into 25 the masonry courses rather than something that appeared -- 12 1 (inaudible) -- drawings we looked at today, it wasn' t 2 possible to tell how it would fit in the course unless it 3 was just stuck right on. It didn' t quite match and so 4 forth. And we figured out that the applicants after 5 consulting myself this afternoon -- (inaudible) -- to get 6 that detail. 7 Those standards are in the resources section of 8 the Land Use Code. Also the Mixed Use Commercial Building 9 Section. One standard calls for new development to use in 10 architectural design that' s complimentary to the established 11 architectural character. That's 3 . 5 . 1B. 3 . 5 . 1B1 calls for 12 the building design to contribute to the uniqueness of the 13 zone district with early design characteristics on the 14 building. 15 Specifically, materials and detailed elements 16 need to be designed specifically and tailored to the site 17 and its contents . 18 Those -- well, there' s another. 3 . 5. 1 I3 and 6 19 called for equipment and mechanical and (inaudible) 20 equipment to be screened, including screen from above from 21 adjacent buildings . 22 And then I'm assured also today plans have not 23 ever shown that. And apparently it' s all concealed behind 24 the parapet from below and from the straight-on view such as 25 (inaudible) and will be incorporated into screenings 1 (inaudible) . So we are satisfied with that one . 13 2 And that ' s just simply there ' s a question 3 (inaudible) . 4 Those were the issues. And, again, to summarize, 5 all the concluded (inaudible) with the respondent. 6 Yeah. To get everyone on the same page, we've 7 got a few photographs . Primarily just photographs of the 8 site and the context. 9 Yeah, here ' s the first one showing the property 10 in question. That ' s the old Cluck-U Chicken restaurant with 11 its parking lot. 12 This is the Dara House next door to the north 13 with its sign and front yard. You see the property there. 14 There' s the Dara House. Eligible for national, state and 15 local designation as a historical landmark. 16 Next door to the south is just to give the flavor 17 of the streetscape, commercial buildings and the sidewalk. 18 Same thing. Detailed view of that. 19 And a few basic downtown-type street front. 20 Across the block in the same block but on the 21 other side of College, again, you know, a pretty traditional 22 character despite style; it varied. Significant detailing. 23 Windows, doorways . Relatively refined materials . 24 There is no concrete block facing the street. 25 Some of these buildings are made of block and have veneers 14 1 on the block and then block out to the side. There is no 2 (inaudible) . 3 This is the design we were reviewing. This would 4 be weighed in that context of what we just looked at. 5 This is essentially the design that was first 6 submitted. 7 Then the peak feature that you see on the 8 elevations there, that was added specifically in response to 9 (inaudible) previously regarding the minimum height on the 10 street. 11 So except for that peak feature, this is 12 essentially what we were presented and this is what we 13 thought was, you know, just simply not being tailored to its 14 local contents. 15 Better suited for this type of application for 16 this type of application (inaudible) . This is the -- what 17 serves as the front really. This is where the doorway is 18 (inaudible) . 19 Another doorway and moved above facing the 20 street. 21 And this is the north side that would be adjacent 22 to the Dara House. 23 The subjects that I listed in response to the 24 applicant' s asking what kinds of things could we do to make 25 the building fit the context better to do what you' re 15 • 1 talking about, I answered in words . And I also did these 2 sketches in about ten minutes one day a couple of months 3 ago. But I just -- this shows the idea of the sign frieze, 4 possibly the architectural lighting kind of traditional in 5 style. 6 At the time I was calling for it to meet the 7 20-foot minimum height by having a 20-foot -- a taller 8 facade facing the, street. That' s a whole subject that 9 we' re now -- we now see that our minimum height does not 10 describe that or call for that. 11 You see the top elements of that and (inaudible) 12 and the base (inaudible) and so forth. So that' s what those • 13 ideas were. 14 I also provided examples of what I mean by the 15 split-faced block overface and then a sill under the 16 windows and the brick, you know, a change in material for 17 brick above the sill. 18 This building is full two-story with a need 19 (inaudible) there' s a cornice type of element, that precast 20 element at about the same height as the building in question 21 that we're talking about. So that was provided just as an 22 example. 23 And what could possibly be done to meet this? 24 All along I encouraged the applicants to use an architect 25 and to rather than have me tell them exactly what to stick 16 1 on the building, have an architect just to design the 2 building to meet these characteristics. However, to the 3 degree they've done that, like I say, we ' re pretty well 4 satisfied. 5 Regarding the peaked roof portion that has a 6 sloped part, I sent this . This is from another recent sort 7 of presubmittal project that we looked at. Again, we see 8 the base, the brick, some three dimensional elements and 9 details, cornice and banding. And also the peaked element 10 has an actual proof with actual eaves and actual brackets. 11 And that' s a more traditional style that we relate to the 12 house next door and so forth there. I haven' t quite drawn 13 it this way, but these are some of the ideas. 14 The point of these is to convey the ideas and 15 stimulate the discussion of how it' s needed. The rest of the 16 slides are the plans and a better view of the plan, if we 17 want to look at the plans, on the boards that the applicants 18 brought. So that' s it for the presentation. 19 MS . MICHOW: Why don' t we turn to the applicant 20 (inaudible) . 21 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Michael -- 22 (Inaudible. ) 23 Clark has kind of gone over essentially the 24 project. I was just going to start out with kind of 25 the aerial view of the area that we ' re at. 17 1 This area right here is where the site is down 2 here. And this is up here at the south (inaudible) . We 3 have Mulberry Street right here, Safeway, Garts 4 Sports . (Inaudible. ) And the office directly here in this 5 building. (Inaudible. ) 6 Also Olive Street runs approximately right here. 7 And the character that Mark was talking about, midtown, 8 downtown, at the plan of the designer I kind of see .this 9 line here changes reasonably drastically, I would say, from 10 what is midtown and what is truly downtown. And I ' ll just 11 kind of define that a little bit further. 12 Midtown is really this kind of strip across from . 13 CSU. You've got a road, Prospect, up to this point. Where 14 there' s a interruption here and their large parking lot. 15 This is the Perkins business street and entering their 16 parking lot at this point here, then it comes down. 17 We have kind of a building here that sits back 18 here on the corner that is made of blocks split-face and 19 brown block. 20 Again actually from about right here over was 21 actually just completed construction just within the last 22 few months. And we' ll go back to that in a minute. 23 Again, this is almost directly across the street, 24 south parking lot opening up between the buildings onto 25 College Avenue. The drive. This building is just across 18 1 the street and Mulberry here . 2 We've got a building here with the drive. 3 Actually in the exact same orientation of the Waffle House 4 building is located a larger building but responding to that 5 narrow deep lot that Old Town doesn' t have. And also kind 6 of helping set some of that character that some of the 7 buildings are set in this fashion. 8 And around on this other side this is where 90 9 percent of all the entrances to the offices, professional 10 offices, retail outlets, things of that nature, where those 11 first and second floor are located. And they've had a 12 connecting walk that comes back out to the street 13 (inaudible) . 14 A couple other buildings. Right across from 15 Perkins also we have the clock towers here. This is a 16 linear view looking this direction. Again the building in 17 our similar orientation. 18 We also have this building here. Again, both of 19 these buildings have small narrow front and they' re very 20 linear in nature (inaudible) . 21 So as far as our site planning and justification 22 (inaudible) that would be adequate. 23 And just looking at some of the other character 24 and some of the others, this is just one example building 25 under 20 foot tall about the same 60 foot height. 19 1 You've got a little bit of treatment here. A 2 little bit of cornice top treatment and they have worked the 3 sign ge in that flat area. 4 And this is College right here. (Inaudible. ) 5 This is the view to the north. That looking a little bit -- 6 again (inaudible) on that and his detail on that as well as 7 (inaudible) of that nature that we can get into a little bit 8 further (inaudible) . 9 We' ll look at that a little bit in detail. 10 Now let' s see if I can get these kind of 11 (inaudible) . 12 Again, this is just some further views . This is • 13 the southwest corner walking along the sidewalk. The view 14 into the site with the existing Cluck-U Chicken with the 15 A-frame building, as you can see, would utterly obliterate 16 the views of the Dara House doesn' t allow any view of that 17 resource from this direction. 18 The building we're proposing would actually start 19 allowing views to that building as you' re moving down 20 College, and views from the second floor right now. I can 21 show some pictures of their views basically from the roof 22 (inaudible) . 23 So they' re actually pretty open. And (inaudible) 24 just use that as professional offices not as a residential 25 offices (inaudible) . 20 1 Just directing you to just right down here 2 again. This is from the alley coming back in. It gives you 3 about view of the south lot line that is basically 4 essentially standard, standard view, that' s painted 5 (inaudible) . 6 They kick the front up here to about 20 foot and 7 dropped this back two-thirds of the building down to about 8 14 feet (inaudible) . 9 Again this is we show a picture of the Dara 10 House. Columns pylons type (inaudible) . 11 This is one of the areas on the side that 12 apparently it' s a vacant office at this point in time. That 13 would have a view. Massage therapist. And this upper 14 corner right here is future windows (inaudible) . 15 Again, this is a view looking down the sidewalk 16 towards (inaudible) and Park Avenue. A similar type view. 17 One thing I wanted to point out in here, as the neighborhood 18 works into this area at Laurel Street, the buildings are set 19 right on the right-of-way line, as they progress north, the 20 buildings start (inaudible) is a transition to the buildings 21 that are located at the northern corner on both sides is the 22 furthest buildings set back and that actually happens in the 23 next building. And (inaudible) starts pulling away from the 24 proper line a couple of feet and starts making that 25 transition a step-back. 21 • 1 This is actually a view right here out of that 2 seco d floor window. They essentially just looked at swamp 3 cool rs, (inaudible) things of that nature out the window 4 ther . And essentially their view is cut off from any other 5 views other than that in that area. 6 And again this is another view out that window. 7 You an see across the parking lot. The large elm tree out 8 here (inaudible) back side there from the second floor 9 wind w. 10 And (inaudible) . 11 And, again, this is a view that (inaudible) 12 talk d about. This is heading south. Awnings bringing 13 thesa larger buildings over down to a pedestrian scale. 14 Stor front windows . CMU block exposed at this point in 15 time They have a little bit of surface against some rock 16 but hat 's about it (inaudible) and a little stucco across 17 the op. 18 I ' ll just talk real quickly (inaudible) of the 19 orie tation. 20 This site, this is the large building that we 21 have right here, existing CMU block wall that sits right on 22 the south property line. We have a very large elm tree here 23 whit (inaudible) . 24 So we looked at our addition here. we felt that 25 also to preserve that natural resource and keep the tree 22 1 there, take the building over here and the building that' s 2 directly across the street, this one here that faces it, 3 that' s essentially set in that same orientation within the 4 same block and neighborhood. 5 And coming through here, and this is actually 6 where the Cluck-U Chicken is sitting next to the drive and 7 goes to the rear parking lot of the Dara House. 8 This is the rooftop line of the Dara House. They 9 have a large spruce that really buffers a lot of views in 10 the back of our building as well as they have an existing 11 CMU block wall that' s about four foot tall painted, 50s 60s 12 look. You can kind of see it. This runs along right 13 through here (inaudible) over here at some point in time 14 (inaudible) . 15 MS. MICHOW: That' s on the Dara? 16 SPEAKER: That's on the Dara House they have 17 looks (inaudible) with X block across the top (inaudible) . 18 But essentially it' s just regular CMU, really painted to 19 match the building that's right here kind of a light yellow 20 color. 21 We have our main entrance in here. Parking lot 22 remains about the same as the setup that' s in there. 23 Obviously to do some improvements with new asphalt, curb and 24 gutter. Also some new concrete work out here in the 25 right-of-way to open up some of the 20-foot radiuses on here 23 . 1 that meets the COOT standards . 2 Also one of the things that we ' re adding in here 3 is also the highlight, this existing walk right through 4 here. The cross, where we have potential pedestrian and 5 vehicular/pedestrian basically crossing the entry drive, a 6 enhanced kind of a crosswalk in a sense to kind of 7 (inaudible) but vehicular and pedestrians now they' re kind 8 of entering in from right off the sidewalk and they' re 9 crossing, making this available more to the (inaudible) 10 vehicles turning in and vehicles coming out. There would be 11 a colored concrete with some diamond patterns (inaudible) . 12 And the color of concrete would go ahead and match what we . 13 have here as far as the material of the building. 14 And we also have an area right here that connects 15 with the existing walk right through here that would be set 16 up the same way kind of as another one of those subtle 17 signals in an urban environment to would allow people to -- 18 again, that there's a transition there. They can take that 19 walk up to the front door to this connecting walk which is 20 one of the requirements that (inaudible) just to have a 21 connecting walk up the street. 22 And, again, we repeat that element here right at 23 the entry and we also have a ramp here that would pick up 24 the same (inaudible) so we would have some tie-ins with the 25 building down to the ground here. • 24 1 Essentially about 18 parking spaces through here, 2 plus along the edges . Service area back here. 3 We' ll tear down the existing CMU block, trash 4 enclosure, put up another, essentially, trash enclosure that 5 would come back and match the architecture as far as color, 6 material, things of that nature in there to tie those things 7 together. 8 Again, one thing we discussed, the cooler location 9 which is this piece right here that sits into the back. We 10 talked about the views from the Dara House. And we still 11 feel that this spruce tree, and I can show you basically the 12 branches hang down. The top of this wall would block any 13 kind of real views here as well as the height of this wall. 14 And that' s basically -- I guess I ' ll point out 15 we've got a couple of existing trees out here in the front 16 of the building as well as this one. 17 The existing site basically has zero landscape 18 other than a little bit of preserved area about half the 19 size around this existing tree. And we' re going to enlarge 20 that. Give the tree a little bit more breathing room in 21 there also. 22 And as well as we' ll add landscape kind of 23 through here along this buffer that will set back 24 (inaudible) five feet from the existing wall. We' ll get 25 some climbing material in there to buffer that scene with 25 . 1 the block wall . As well as we' re going to go ahead and try 2 and buffer some of this CMU block wall back in this service 3 area that' s located back here which is the trash enclosure 4 and ack door of the restaurant. 5 And we actually discussed with Clark today, we've 6 had 5ome smaller shrubs through here. We' re going to look 7 at tie option of maybe looking at some Boston Ivy, something 8 of t at nature, that would also climb that wall and also 9 star to give a little bit of more of a buffering view of 10 what that facade would look like. 11 And this is a little long. We' re going to have 12 some pylons (inaudible) coming through the entry columns 13 that we have on this side. We' ll break this wall up with 14 thos that (inaudible) . 15 So on the top we have kind of a wringer plate on 16 that (inaudible) with existing spruces. Where the Dara 17 House is located, it has existing trees here that also kind 18 of block and buffers from the windows along here and kind of 19 brings the house down and also (inaudible) to the Waffle 20 House building. 21 And so a lot of this is very similar. We have 22 the colored concrete, the parking. An alley access off the 23 back side here. Trash enclosure would be opposite that 24 (inaudible) out here. 25 The other thing that it seems like for the most 26 1 part staff is -- will pretty well work out of those issues. 2 There' s a few little engineering things here and there that 3 pretty easily are clarifiable at the final compliance, put a 4 little more detail on things . But as Clark pointed out, 5 this is essentially an architectural issue and trying to 6 bring that around. 7 I think he had shown the last set (inaudible) of 8 your view. This is the first, I guess, elevations that we 9 turned in. 10 This is very similar to the level in the Waffle 11 House (inaudible) a little bit of color block here. Some 12 stripes, they kind of move through with the masonry straight 13 up with the Waffle House signature lettering on there. 14 That' s the trademark that they use. 15 And we've gone through some obliteration. We've 16 worked with Clark as closely as possible to do different -- 17 trying to get some of his thoughts from interpreting what 18 the code says and also working with the staff on what they 19 feel it should look like also. 20 So at this point in time, this is essentially our 21 different views. I' ll start with at the bottom. 22 Pretty simply, this is the view back here. If 23 you notice even from the additional view, we had no wall 24 here. This is the existing roof line now. These are the 25 parapet walls that stick up. 27 • 1 And essentially the building slopes from the 2 front, or the west side in this case, back to the back. And 3 thera is a slight dash line that comes through here. 4 And on this one we' re actually showing where the 5 AC u its and the mechanical equipment would be. That 6 they' re -- essentially even if you were on this horizontal 7 view here, that you essentially won't see them. And from 8 the street there would be no way that you would be able to 9 see them. 10 It was brought up by staff what about from the 11 Dara House window, and (inaudible) we've gone out and 12 meas red essentially right here to this lower sill, and is a • 13 few inches actually lower than where our top of our walls 14 woull be. So possibly somebody sitting there, depending on 15 the nechanical location, if it' s on the far south of the 16 buil ing, there ' s a possibility that they may see a side. 17 As I pointed out there are a number of other 18 buil ings around town that are obviously continue to be 19 gone. This building right here, this is from the sidewalk. 20 All the city' s equipment is completely exposed. 21 The Northern Hotel, which just underwent a big 22 reno ation, you can see all their equipment from the top. 23 This building right here right behind Perkins, 24 agaii you can see basically from this last lot right here 25 ther ' s a new addition that they put on the last few 28 1 months . 2 You can see the new equipment as well as old 3 equipment as well as from the towers from behind, obviously 4 very easily seen from that area that there's been no 5 screening necessary. Although we have gone into staff in 6 talking today and said that if that is something that we 7 need to do, and they feel incredibly strong about doing 8 that, that we would provide a metal screen that would go on 9 top of each of the mechanical units in there. The screen 10 would be viewed from essentially from the top that has a 11 view. Our building is one office out of the Dara House, 12 possibly another one. 13 We felt like we've worked with staff pretty well 14 on that, and we've committed to do some things of that 15 nature and try and comply as best as we can with it, even 16 though there would be other examples that have very recently 17 happened (inaudible. ) 18 As Clark was saying, and you can kind of see from 19 sketches and some of the things that the Waffle House 20 architect in Alabama has worked on, we have come back 21 through here and defined a base course, which we have 22 before, but we've enhanced it, made it larger and set it off 23 by different color. And at this point in time it' s proposed 24 with base block. 25 Under the window sills along here and along the 29 1 street frontage of doing a (inaudible) concrete sill to 2 define the lower half of the windows. If you look actually 3 at how the striping comes along, we have a couple of stripes 4 that would be of different color coming along. And we' re 5 using -- the striping also define at the lintel to the 6 window also is a different coloration, which has been done 7 on various different buildings that have just been built 8 recently in the last few months, and that has been something 9 allowable. As well as the awnings here really do kind of 10 also set and define the top of those windows . 11 Another thing that we 've also done is before, if 12 you look on here, it's all basically store front aluminized • 13 windows, and we've come back and we've broken those windows 14 up. On the corners in the center basically have two panes 15 of glass and go to (inaudible) and then two panes of glass 16 and he same things, trying to define those windows further 17 for the city. They were concerned about just having large 18 store front windows (inaudible) and look at and give an 19 example of actually large store front windows occur up and 20 down Old Town in the downtown area are prevalent. 21 And another item that we did add also is this 22 corn ce treatment that is widely along the grid to address 23 the op element-type piece. It' s a 8-inch by 4-inch 24 (inaudible) about 4 inches from the block (inaudible) . 25 Also as Clark had pointed out, that the original 30 1 elevations, the door was defined only by an awning at. this 2 point. We've come back and looked at some different 3 elements and we've gone to the peak element here which 4 is 20-foot, which meets the definition of zoning and 5 the definition of building height and the Land Use Code. 6 And part of that element was similarly derived. 7 Again we talked about historic buildings. To compliment 8 them isn't necessarily to copy them, but to pull off little 9 bits and pieces of details and the design ideas that they 10 have had to try to incorporate it into the building. 11 And certain things you can see pointed out 12 before. The Dara House uses the peaked roof and has kind of 13 the columns, the pylons that come down, sticks out and 14 creates more proportions (inaudible) residents. 15 And we've kind of taken that similar element in 16 defining the door. Also allowing the awning, kind of 17 creating the peak slightly different but still pulling in 18 some of that architectural detail from the buildings 19 next-door and allowing that to kind of jut out. 20 And on the back side instead of just regular 21 block, it would be a siding type element on that. Kind of 22 tie some of that back into the house, the Dara House next 23 door. 24 And also as I was pointing out along the north 25 wall, also coming back in. And there' s some glass here at 31 • 1 the orner, of bringing in that pylon so it kind of ties in 2 and Ratch visibly with what' s happening on the south side of 3 the Duilding. And that also kind of breaks up that linear 4 wall by changing planes and conserving ribs or pylasters 5 whici is required in the project. 6 Another element that we had talked with Clark 7 abou that he kind of had on his idea or wish list that he'd 8 like to see was a sign frieze. And as he was saying, we 9 addei in some sign friezes here on the south side of the 10 buil ing, here on the west and on the north. 11 A little harder to see it here on the west . This 12 is a tual to scale the existing tree out there that would 13 obsc re and buffer a lot of the building out there. The 14 tree s approximately about 40 feet tall and that' s 15 (ina dible) with this viewwise. 16 That ' s the existing tree out of Cluck-U' s about 17 here And that' s . about a 20-foot building. And it comes to 18 appr ximately the middle of the tree a good 35 40-foot 19 tall And it does a pretty good job of buffering views from 20 the qest, which was a concern about also of what' s happening 21 with that building. 22 And as you can see, it' s going to really enhance 23 just really the base coarse glass a little bit of the awning 24 here for the pedestrian urban kind of feel that they have 25 goin . 32 1 And that was one thing here that would show a 2 little bit of scale of what size of this building, the 3 awning height, tree size with that pedestrian walking right 4 by the building. 5 The building is a good size height. 6 Proportionately it does correspond with many of the 7 buildings in Old Town as far as their height goes also and 8 for a single story building. And also then still using the 9 awnings you kind of try and bring this wall, which is nearly 10 three times as tall as the average person, start bringing a 11 little bit more human scale now down to this urban area that 12 we have pretty good concreted plaza-type area in front and 13 all the way through this building here. 14 And we feel, again, that this is really gone much 15 more of an urban and not have some images of downtown 16 buildings, whereas there' s an eclectic style of downtown. 17 And back to the sign frieze, we've come in and 18 we've tried to introduce with a (inaudible) product, which 19 ties in a lot at the top, also just 3-D visualwise with the 20 sill, a defining and sign frieze type area. Whereas before 21 it was basically just straight block in introducing that. 22 We originally after we met with Clark earlier 23 today, black EIFS in that area than with the typical 24 Waffle House trademark letters would be yellow letters. So 25 we used black background with the yellow lettering, which is 33 1 the style that Waffle House has and has always employed and 2 people have come to know that hey, that' s Waffle House. 3 That' s their trademark signature type thing there. 4 We have gone ahead and taken the black EIFS 5 out. Clark was real thrilled with that. And so we' re 6 looking at going back to just using the EIFS to create 7 some three-dimensional elements and definition there of a 8 sign frieze area and probably keeping the original block 9 back round in there. 10 Now there' s negotiations, I guess, going back and 11 fortl on what type of block that would be. At this point in 12 time, we are proposing that this be a CMU block building 13 much like the building that is just to the south that' s just 14 across the street from us, and several of them that are just 15 across the street. 16 But using a split face and using colors to define 17 thin s, this more natural color right here that' s being 18 defined here, we' re also proposing to be a split face block 19 to give it more texture. It gives it more shade, shadow 20 (ina dible) the block kind of moves out and has some 21 different undulations to it and kind of creates more of a 22 uniq e interest to the building other than just being sheer 23 black. 24 MS. MICHOW: How many sign friezes do you have? 25 SPEAKER: We have three sign friezes . There' s 34 1 one on the south side. There is one on the west side. And 2 we had one on the north side. And there' s some possible 3 issues with the north side that we're negotiating or we 've 4 talked with Clark about as far as that goes. 5 SPEAKER: And I could speak to some of that. 6 MS . MICHOW: I 'm sorry, could you state your 7 name? 8 MR. BARON: Sure. It' s Walter Baron. And I 'm 9 with Waffle House. Kind of a difficult way to do it, and in 10 talking about the notes that the conditions on approval, I 11 certainly think the signage issue is one that we can address 12 on the north face that we can go without. It is sort of a 13 request from that. So it would eliminate that sign frieze 14 on the north side. 15 Now one of the things that I kind of want to 16 discuss in that respect and maybe you can help me out, 17 because I know that the sign plans are to be done on a 18 different date and to be quite frank with you, we haven't 19 decided exactly what we want to do, but I believe there 20 is -- we're eliminating our one potential position for a 21 sign and especially to gain visibility coming south on 22 College, I think the code reads that if we have a monument 23 sign, we' re not allowed a sign facing the street. 24 SPEAKER: Well, there' s simply a maximum square 25 footage of 90 square feet. 35 . 1 MR. BARON: Okay, good. That helps me out then. 2 We can certainly agree with that condition a hundred 3 percent. 4 SPEAKER: Great. 5 MS. MICHOW: (Inaudible. ) Okay, if we can just 6 take -- 7 (The audio tape went to side 2 . ) 8 MS. MICHOW: And I think at the end of the 9 applicant ' s presentation, perhaps we can summarize what has 10 been agreed to by staff as conditions and approval since -- 11 SPEAKER: I agree. And perhaps we can skip 12 quickly over that thing, and the sills and everything that • 13 we've agreed on. 14 SPEAKER: Right. And I think to be honest with 15 you on the conditions, am I in the right place? I think 16 we' rE towards the end. 17 The only thing that causes me any consternation 18 happens to be No. 3 . And I 'm not -- and it' s the change in 19 the texture of the mason -- no, I 'm sorry. I apologize. 20 MS. MICHOW: Are you referring to -- 21 SPEAKER: I 'm referring to the staff 22 recommendation conditions of them recommending approval. 23 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And that' s in a memo, Clark, 24 that you did dated today. 25 SPEAKER: And I 'm sorry, it' s No. 2 actually. 36 1 "Provide the clarified sign frieze detail as discussed 2 between staff and the applicant. " 3 I think we're generally on the same page. I 'm 4 not a hundred percent sure we' re a hundred percent on the 5 same page there, but -- so I don't want to agree to a 6 condition that we might not already be agreed on. Do you 7 understand? 8 SPEAKER: I do. And, likewise, we don' t want to 9 agree to approve plans that aren' t complete in responding to 10 the comments. 11 And it ' s impossible to tell on the drawings how 12 that band -- unless it' s just stuck on top of the building, 13 and we've heard that you think that it' s maybe smooth block 14 inside and maybe that (inaudible) but it ' s impossible to 15 tell the way it' s just down on there. 16 And we need to -- I think we agreed to something 17 that would -- I don' t know if you -- if you guys all talked 18 with each other, but it looked like it would work. There 19 would be no negative impacts as far as building it? 20 SPEAKER: Well, once again, it looked like it, 21 but I 'm not sure until my architect reviews it. And -- 22 SPEAKER: That's a function of the hearing being 23 a little premature. 24 SPEAKER: I mean, I 'm willing to agree with it. 25 MS. MICHOW: Well, I don' t know that we can agree 37 1 to this condition simply because I don' t think that it's 2 spec ' fic enough, Clark, for my purposes to know what was 3 disc ssed between you and the applicant. 4 SPEAKER: That was kind of where I was getting 5 at. 6 SPEAKER: Because really unless we can -- I don' t 7 know exactly. This is unusual. Like I said in the 8 begi ning, it's premature. We did this to accommodate the 9 appl ' cants, and I didn' t know if we would see any response 10 to t e comments . 11 SPEAKER: Well, we did discuss that, yes . We did 12 say ie were going to meet your conditions . 13 SPEAKER: But we also said your architect -- I 14 didn' t know for sure what we would do. So I had to prepare 15 it based on the plans that we did review and so forth. 16 So the fact that the detail -- well, if we can 17 draw it up tonight and agree on it, and you guys can agree 18 to i , I . think that' s the only -- otherwise, the hearing is 19 simp y still premature. Or else we'll review the building 20 basel on that. And if that's a response to my comment, I 21 have to say that I can't support the building. 22 SPEAKER: So with that one condition, you' re 23 comp etely withdrawing your response, your approval? 24 SPEAKER: I don' t see any alternative. Again, 25 normally we wouldn' t schedule the hearing until something 38 1 like this was worked out. So we either have to do it -- 2 SPEAKER: Is there any reason that we can' t work 3 that out right now and basically resolve, (inaudible) . 4 SPEAKER: Yeah, let' s finish it. 5 SPEAKER: Maybe we can kind of keep talking about 6 some things . 7 SPEAKER: But it sounds like there are things we 8 can agree upon, and we' re trying to keep from beating a dead 9 horse here. If we have a meeting of the minds, the only 10 issue left is the one thing we were just we' re talking 11 about. And if we get that resolved, we' re done. 12 SPEAKER: Well, some of what I was going to talk 13 about is we' ll address that as far as code requirements, 14 staff preferences. I mean, I guess, essentially, we' re 15 trying to -- staff has a preference to have a sign frieze. 16 There' s nowhere in the code that says we have to have a sign 17 frieze. 18 Now we have to have a top element and that was 19 one of the things that I was getting ready to talk about a 20 little bit was supposedly the sign frieze meets the 21 character of Old Town or downtown areas. I just went and 22 took -- just randomly walked down the street and took 23 different pictures of different buildings and transitions 24 and honestly there' s very few places in downtown that really 25 have a sign frieze. 39 • 1 Now they may still have a top course of a little 2 bit more masonry. Maybe in this case, we've got just the 3 front that has a little bit of top course. This one right 4 here is probably a lot closer to what we want to do in this 5 area. It' s basically leave this -- we could leave that area 6 flat and still have the three-dimensional top. We could 7 still even do something along the bottom with the EIFS 8 that we' re proposing and then have the awning that' s coming 9 out . 10 Very eclectic downtown. Very diverse in 11 architecture. And nowhere written in the code does it say 12 we have to have a sign frieze. And nowhere in Old Town does • 13 it say -- I mean, maybe its ten or fifteen percent of the 14 buildings have it. 15 Now we've tried to work very hard with staff, and 16 we still are working very hard with staff, and we' re trying 17 to work out their preference towards the sign frieze. 18 But I guess that' s been one of the things that 19 Waffle House is concerned about of having -- that you have 20 to have this particular kind of sign frieze to meet the 21 architectural character for downtown and have an urban style 22 building. It leans more towards staff preference. 23 Now, are we willing to work with them? Yes. We 24 have worked, we 've proposed a number of things. We've 25 agreed upon -- and I just did a very quick sketch that I can 40 1 dimension out and put into -- and Clark can look at that and 2 make sure that he thought that this was acceptable. 3 But this is essentially what we had talked about 4 there. And we can enter it into the record, and you can 5 look at it and Clark can look at it -- that we talked about 6 this afternoon at my office. You know, adding some 7 additional EIFS. Giving a little bit more relief, 8 Creating some more shadow lines, things of that nature. 9 And if we could possibly move forward, if that' s 10 fine with Waffle House to do that and leave just basic block 11 in the center here, which basically would be covered. 12 Staff has also talked about a condition that it 13 had to be a ground face block, which is a smoother type of a 14 finished surface. 15 But most of those areas are going to be covered 16 up with signage that will buffer those views to that block. 17 It' s not going to really be perceivable from the street and 18 from people walking by that you have a little bit of texture 19 difference in those areas. 20 I mean, we still have on the table that we will 21 continue to work with them and get that small detail, as far 22 as it's considered, and architecture worked out. But to 23 hold us to the fire saying that if you don' t have this 24 exactly, then it burns us if we' re not downtown. 25 And, again, we're not trying to seek staff or 41 • 1 anything, but we' re just concerned about some of these 2 having to do this to be a downtown urban-style building, 3 which I guess I 'd have to disagree with. And I think Waffle 4 Hous disagrees with. 5 If you look downtown, it ' s not like that. There 6 are some cases that it ' s done that way and they do have 7 thre -dimensional top elements. And we' re willing to work a 8 litt e bit more on that. But -- 9 MS. MICHOW: I understand Waffle House' s 10 position. 11 Clark, can you point to provisions in the Land 12 Use Code that relate to sign requirements and sign froezes? 13 SPEAKER: No, it' s true the friezes aren't 14 required. 15 Let me restate the fact that I never wanted to 16 have the response to the comments consist of me telling them 17 what to stick onto the building in order to address the 18 comments. I strongly encouraged them to have an architect 19 to read these passages. 20 "New construction is designed to respect the 21 historic character of the site and any historic properties 22 in the surrounding neighborhood. This section is intended 23 to protect designated or eligible historic structures, 24 whether on or adjacent to the project site, " and so on. 25 I could read on the things that I cited before. 42 1 Now you read those and you look at the building and there ' s 2 no way that these standards can anticipate how every new 3 development can respect the historic character of every 4 existing resource. 5 3. 4 .7 (b) "The development plan and building 6 design shall protect and enhance the historical and 7 architectural value of any such historic property on or 8 adjacent to the project site. New buildings must be 9 compatible with the historic character of any such historic 10 buildings . " 11 Now the applicants asked me as we start to talk 12 about this, what could we possibly do to take that Loveland 13 shopping center design and adapt to this? And in response 14 I 've listed those items and I had them listed. That was my 15 best shot. 16 And I reviewed it with our historic preservation 17 planners. They basically agreed. They feel that it' s a 18 kind of simplistic response. The top element is 19 (inaudible. ) 20 I have a response to a whole bunch of assertions 21 that have been made here. But it isn't relevant -- come 22 look, for example, at this building. 23 We didn' t review it. And there' s nothing in the 24 code says walk around until you find buildings that have the 25 mechanical equivalent, for instance. 43 • 1 There are a lot of buildings around here built 2 prior to this adoption of this Land Use Code. And what that 3 mean isn' t that new buildings under the code review like 4 that. The code was done in response to the accumulating of 5 growing inventory of issues like this . That' s what the Land 6 Use ode is . It 's in response to many of the things that 7 are ited. 8 So, no, there' s nothing that says there has to a 9 sign frieze. However, ideally an architect, maybe a local 10 one, I know that there are local architects that would have 11 been able and worked on some of this stuff of examples that 12 I sh wed you, that would have been able to take this 13 Lang age here and do a building that captures it. 14 So the frieze, the sills, ' the cornice, there' s 15 nothing in here that says that there has to be a sill under 16 the indows. It simply calls for that detailing in the 17 general standards. 18 I guess I read them all before (inaudible) . 19 MS. MICHOW: Yeah, they're in this stack. 20 SPEAKER: So, no, there' s nothing that says 21 there has to a frieze, however, these seem to be sort of 22 minimal elements that can be again added without 23 fundamentally actually having an architect design a 24 building. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Can I make a comment? 44 1 MS . MICHOW: Sure. 2 MR. WILLIAMS : I 'm Ken Williams with the Waffle 3 House, and I 'd just like to say that we did ask for a lot of 4 direction in the beginning to see how we could take our 5 prototypical building that people recognize and try to blend 6 it into the community. 7 But I'd just like to say this memo that was dated 8 today with the four conditions, I mean, I think we agree on 9 it. We don' t mind doing a sign frieze. I know it's not 10 required, but we' re willing to do it. 11 And I think Michael has submitted something that 12 we can live with and we'd like to get on with this. 13 SPEAKER: This isn't quite what we did in your 14 office. I ' ll show you what we did, in my recollection. 15 MS. MICHOW: Do we want to take a five minute 16 recess? 17 SPEAKER: Yeah. 18 MS. MICHOW: Let's take a recess. 19 (A recess was taken. ) 20 MS. MICHOW: We' re back on the record. It' s 21 approximately ten of eight. We were in recess for about ten 22 minutes . And the applicant was meeting with staff to 23 determine whether they could resolve the issue of the sign 24 frieze design. 25 And, Clark, if you want to reiterate what you 45 1 believe the applicant has agreed to in terms of a sign 2 frieze for the record. 3 SPEAKER: It is a continuation of the 8-inch 4 module which is found at the corners or west side of the 5 building up above the awning to the cornice element. And 6 then starting there and also starting one course of block 7 above the awning. You' re into the area that would be known 8 as the frieze panel. And it would be bounded by EIFS with 9 two sort of step -- a band of EIFS that looks like a 10 double band because it' s stepped, with a stepped detail. 11 Terraced back. So that it' s not just a single pressed-in 12 recess but there' s a step to the north (inaudible) feature 13 just a little bit of detailing around it. 14 It now fits within the coursing of the masonry 15 clearly. That EIFS treatment would extend up and actually 16 be essentially unified, either actually unified or appear to 17 be unified with the top piece so that, again, the frieze is 18 starting to be more substantial by integrating with that top 19 piece . 20 The in-fill of the frieze panel I believe is 21 acceptable either as block or as EIFS if you want to 22 create it as a background for the signage. 23 A number of the comments that the applicants 24 made, I would have a response to. One was the black, and I 25 didn' t like the black. That was related to the fact that • 46 1 one of these friezes was proposed for the front of the 2 building, yet was not going to have any signage on it, so 3 that it looked kind of like a chalk board, frankly, black 4 and only with a white outline around it. So that was the 5 thing with the black. 6 But I do think it will be more in keeping with 7 the architecture and enhance the architecture more and have 8 it more related to the color of the block. Although I 'm not 9 positive, the black wasn't a do or die issue if there' s 10 going to be signing on there. 11 And so, again, I think what we ' re talking about 12 is having signage go on the front. And one of these was on 13 the north side which really didn't make sense. 14 So that' s what we agreed on, plus a little bit of 15 background on the black. 16 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And with that description, 17 does the applicant agree to that condition relevant to the 18 signage? 19 MR. BARON: Yes, we do. Walter Baron of Waffle 20 House. 21 MR. MICHOW: Do you have anything to add to the 22 presentation? I note there are four conditions that staff 23 has recommended in the memo dated today' s date. 24 MR. BARON: One of the things that I did want 25 to -- I mean, one of the issues that' s been brought to my 47 • 1 attention that we, as we mentioned, we screened the 2 utilities, the mechanical equipment from the ground. And 3 there ' s an issue with code that requires them to be screened 4 from above even up to five stories, regardless of what ' s 5 there . 6 And we've proposed a top screen, which I do think 7 woulc work. I would prefer, if staff agrees, to forego that 8 until such time that we have determination that there ' s 9 goinc to be -- first of all right now. we' re looking at two 10 windows. I think we can provide something that shows that 11 it' s not an attractive -- basically what I 'm saying is I 'd 12 prefer not to do the screens. I do think that they may be a . 13 maintenance issue. 14 SPEAKER: Should we respond to that one? That ' s 15 sort of unrelated. 16 MR. BARON: I would like to write it in as a 17 condition of approval. That we' re willing to add those 18 screens at such time as it becomes an issue. 19 SPEAKER: It' s an issue now. So it would be one 20 of two subjects. 21 MS. MICHOW: Yeah. That is an outstanding issue, 22 Clar , according to the staff report, correct? The 23 mechanical equipment, screening? 24 SPEAKER: Yeah, although I thought again today 25 they suggested that they could provide a screen that goes 48 1 around those. 2 This is actually -- it' s also the least visible 3 from Canino' s Restaurant across the street. I know that at 4 least it' s visible from there. 5 The code simply requires that it be screened. 6 3 . 5. 1 (i) (3) and (6) . 7 And one of my other responses is that none of 8 this is about looking at the current tenants in the 9 building, the massage therapists. This is about building 10 in the city that tries to accomplish through standards 11 (inaudible) and so forth. 12 For that reason, if we could, the code just 13 simply says that it's got to be screened. I 'm still looking 14 for the exact. 15 MS. MICHOW: Well, if it' s screened, then it ' s 16 got to be screened. 17 MR. COWELL: Could I ask you a question? I 'm 18 Barry Cowell with the Waffle House. 19 Have any other developments recently screened 20 theirs so we can get some ideas on what would work? 21 SPEAKER: Yes, the new city office building on 22 the next block over. Now, it is new, and it was built under 23 the Land Use Code, and we did make our facilities people do 24 it. 25 And yes, they consolidated their equipment into 49 1 some green metal structures . But the code simply requires 2 that all rooftop mechanical equipment be screened from both 3 abov and below by integrating the look of the building and 4 roof design to the maximum extent feasible. 5 MR. COWELL: And the reason I 'm asking, so we 6 can let some idea. 7 SPEAKER: Yeah. Some kind of metal screen. 8 MR. COWELL: So we can take pictures and 9 (ina dible) and not screened metals. I 'm curious as to how 10 that happens. 11 SPEAKER: Right. Again, this town is full of 12 deve opments of various vintages, most of which you had seen 13 buil prior to this code. And like I said, I think this 14 code was a response of the community and they' re saying time 15 out. 16 MR. COWELL: Is this built to code? 17 SPEAKER: That' s probably prior to this Land Use 18 Code 19 MR. COWELL: But clearly this structure was just 20 comp eted within the last three or four-plus. 21 SPEAKER: You mean in addition to the building? 22 MR. COWELL: Yes. 23 SPEAKER: I know that it was first built as a use 24 by r ght prior to the (inaudible) . 25 SPEAKER: Right, well, the existing building was 50 1 built up to this point, I guess, right here, which is this 2 small L. And this other part came through in the last year 3 with minor amendments. 4 SPEAKER: I think we ought to say that if you' re 5 going to go out and find buildings that don' t meet the 6 code -- 7 MR. COWELL: That ' s not my intention. 8 SPEAKER:. -- then I think you should say that and 9 then let the decision-maker -- 10 MR. COWELL: No, the reason I ask is so we can 11 get some ideas which we haven't done that. 12 SPEAKER: No, but (inaudible) . 13 MR. COWELL: Right. Well, the issue -- 14 SPEAKER: The (inaudible) buildings that don' t 15 have this. And if you think that' s leading to the idea that 16 that' s a factor that we should weigh in and not do it here, 17 then say so and otherwise then it' s not relevant to be able 18 to find another building, especially one that wasn't built 19 under the Land Use Code. 20 SPEAKER: How old is the Land Use Code? 21 SPEAKER: 197. I know right next door the next 22 apartment, because I commented on that one similarly. 23 It should be simple. I even think that this 24 metal mesh screen that' s a dark color and the top has to be 25 open for venting. You know, it's got to work. 51 . 1 The point is you just don't have a whole bunch of 2 silver or otherwise equipment sort of like, you know, not 3 thought about. The point is (inaudible) . 4 MR. BARON: Could I make a closing statement on 5 that or something? 6 MS. MICHOW: Sure. 7 SPEAKER: Just to let you know, a typical Waffle 8 House, and we had a picture, I don't know where it 9 was at, I was just going to show you what we build in 10 interstate system (inaudible) and you've seen some of them 11 in Denver. We just built one in Parker, Colorado. 12 But we kept hearing the statement tonight, a . 13 typi al size is forty parking spaces. We' re taking a risk. 14 We'v got what? Eighteen? (Inaudible. ) 15 The cost of this building, even though I 'm sure 16 it' s not relevant to what you're saying is 150 percent of 17 what a normal building cost and then you add the land and 18 the levelopment. 19 And it's not the guys from Atlanta coming in and 20 walk ng away. We have a local franchisee who will operate 21 this restaurant. And he's been with the Waffle House system 22 for ighteen years . And he operates Longmont; he operates 23 Love and; he operates Fort Collins, too. So it' s going to 24 be a local person. We just happen to do all of their real 25 esta a for them. • 52 1 But we kept hearing the statement tonight and we 2 kept saying well, what would you like for us to do? And in 3 the spirit of the city, we feel like that we've worked with 4 the city of Fort Collins over and above any Waffle House 5 that I think any of you have ever seen. 6 So we would just like to get the plans approved 7 and move forward at this point. 8 SPEAKER: I would like to comment. 9 MS. MICHOW: Your name please? 10 SPEAKER: Andy (inaudible. ) 11 I 've lived in Fort Collins since 1969. I 've sold 12 real estate since 1979. And for as long as I can remember 13 there' s been this god-ugly structure on this lot that' s 14 (inaudible) now it's Cluck-U. And it' s finally -- 15 SPEAKER: We're going to change the name, too, by 16 the way. 17 SPEAKER: Finally, we're getting this eyesore 18 off of our main street and these guys coming in and taking a 19 chance and putting this building up there that I think would 20 be a not just an improvement but an incredible improvement 21 over that spot on our main street. 22 I personally want to thank you for it. But I 23 hate driving by that ugly, ugly store. 24 SPEAKER: We considered Cluck-U Waffles, but we 25 changed our minds. 53 1 SPEAKER: Can I say something? 2 MS. MICHOW: Yes, of course. Your name? 3 MS . REED: I 'm Judith Reed. I own the Dara 4 Hous . 5 When the Cluck-U Chicken was there, we had a 6 nois factor and we had fumes . The noise factor, I 'm 7 wondering if we can (inaudible) is there screens or the 8 nois of the fans or whatever or are there fans outside? 9 SPEAKER: Our air conditioning systems might -- 10 Let me kind of address it in two ways . 11 I think the type of air conditioning systems that 12 we use are modern as opposed to what' s there for the Cluck-U 13 Chicken. And so I think you' ll find that they' re extremely 14 quiet comparatively speaking. 15 Compared to what ' s there now, since it' s not 16 running, obviously, it' s going to be probably a little bit 17 louder than what' s currently there. But it probably 18 shouldn' t be any more than your typical window unit. I think 19 there ' s even a window unit in the office that overlooks the 20 site that we' re developing. 21 And from an odor standpoint, we use a ventilation 22 System that is designed to minimize odors . It' s designed 23 to - now you have to vent the atmosphere, so that' s a 24 function of the use. But it is -- we 've taken care to put 25 in a fairly heavy duty ventilation system that does have a 54 1 filter that vents what's going to the atmosphere. 2 Does it get it a hundred percent? No, ma' am. 3 Once again, compared to what was there -- and 4 we' re cooking waffles and we're cooking hamburgers . We're 5 not deep-frying. Deep-frying usually creates -- we don' t 6 have a deep fryer at all. We cook everything on a flat 7 griddle. 8 So that is one area that we don't have to -- I 9 did notice that they have two ventilation systems. It was 10 obvious to me that they had two friers going at one time and 11 that' s something that we just won' t have. I mean, it' s -- I 12 think you' ll be -- I think it will be a significant 13 improvement over what you've had to deal with before. 14 MS. REED: Do you have take-away or take-out? I 15 have problems with a lot of trash (inaudible) . 16 SPEAKER: I imagine that you did, because I don' t 17 think they had a sit down eating area outside. And what our 18 design is, we do sell to-go orders. 19 SPEAKER: I can answer that. Less than 10 20 percent of our business is to-go. Waffles don't travel 21 well. 22 SPEAKER: Breakfast doesn' t travel well. 23 MS. REED: There won' t be outdoor seating then? 24 SPEAKER: No, there will not. Everything will be 25 enclosed inside the building. We won' t have any outdoor 55 i1 seating. We serve on fine china. We serve on china. 2 SPEAKER: We think it ' s fine . 3 SPEAKER: We think it ' s fine. And so there' s not 4 a whole lot of disposable take-away type of stuff. Most of 5 it is the Styrofoam cups for coffee and things like that. 6 But generally those make it a little bit further than the 7 parking lot. 8 MS. REED: This is something that can't be 9 (ina dible) but I wondered if the staff that you' re talking 10 about thought at all about colors. The color scheme that ' s 11 done, they couldn' t clash more with the Dara House colors . 12 The Drange and the black is that what it is? . 13 SPEAKER: On the awning? 14 MS. REED: Uh-huh. 15 SPEAKER: It is red, black and yellow. 16 MS. REED: To me that ' s really -- it doesn' t fit 17 at a 1 with the Dara House. But I know that's your 18 signature whatever, trademark. Do you intend to do anything 19 abou that? Or did staff talk about that? 20 SPEAKER: Oh, we didn't. 21 MS. REED: Is that not an issue? 22 SPEAKER: It certainly crossed my mind. I never 23 brou ht it up with anyone else to talk about. 24 Currently awnings are -- it ' s a (inaudible) feature 25 and ommon in the area. It struck me as a corporate symbol, 56 1 and we do have a standard that says that corporate 2 signature, or however we word it, corporate signature 3 (inaudible) have to be modified to fit the local 4 conditions . So it' s possible that it could be a subject for 5 discussion. It simply just didn't come up. 6 It struck me that it' s, yeah, a little bit, yeah, 7 kind of stands out in contrast with the townscape. I think 8 if you want to talk about it, this is a good time and 9 place. 10 The standard that it would fall under is 3 .5. 3 (d) 11 character and image. One cites specific design. This 12 standard was written, I would just give you the background, 13 specifically to deal with national franchise chains 14 (inaudible) . 15 "Building design shall contribute to the 16 uniqueness of the zone district and the Fort Collins 17 community. Predominant materials, elements, features, 18 color, range and activity areas tailored specifically to the 19 site and its context. 20 "A standardized prototype design shall be 21 modified, if necessary, to meet the provisions of this Land 22 Use Code. " 23 So that standard gives you a tool. And the 24 provision that you would be talking about are the 3 . 4 .7, and 25 enhancing the historic resource. 57 1 And, again, I don' t want to read all the 2 standards. If you followed what I did read, though, so that 3 if that' s an issue, clearly that is something that would 4 be open. But we did not raise the awnings to the level to 5 asking the applicants to change them although it did cross 6 my mind. 7 MS. REED: Can you change it? 8 SPEAKER: We prefer not to, and I ' ll kind of 9 explain to you why is because it is a signature. It is 10 something, quite frankly, that it' s really one of the last 11 grasps -- this is a quite different store than one that we 12 normally do. It' s kind of a last grasp effort for us to 13 keep some sort of identity. 14 And it comes down to -- or it may come down to -- 15 I think that's something that we'd have to go back, and it 16 may come down to is it time to pull out and go away or is it 17 time to try to achieve some harmony? 18 SPEAKER: The only other alternative that we have 19 is the yellow back wood awning that we've used. A typical 20 Waffle House has a yellow fascia, which is really a 21 trademark of what -- you know, with the black plastic 22 letters, which is a trademark as their signage. 23 And we've gone to this -- this awning is our 24 standard building. But we have done a yellow back wood 25 awning that' s sold yellow. But that to me is more offensive 58 1 than what' s here. 2 SPEAKER: I agree. One thing that I ' ll say about 3 the awning, it was originally submitted with the awning kind 4 of sticking out of the skirt on both sides of the building 5 and the applicants have truncated it at the north wall so 6 that it kind of -- so that now it kind of reflects an 7 orientation towards the south or towards the right. 8 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) you cross these windows . 9 We have removed that and run it around just the side. 10 SPEAKER: It' s meant to emphasize. The awning is 11 now only on the front and south sides . (inaudible) south 12 side and sort of leave the north side as a transition area 13 as you go around the building (inaudible) image. So we did 14 do that. 15 MS. REED: It's now on the west side? 16 SPEAKER: It' s now on the west side. 17 SPEAKER: And we removed the signage on the north 18 side. 19 SPEAKER: To me having the awning is just great. 20 MS. REED: Well, I like an awning but (inaudible) 21 that is in accordance with the historical nature (inaudible) 22 SPEAKER: I guess with the Mexican restaurant, 23 their awning is red, white and green. And they' re using 24 multiple colors . 25 SPEAKER: It' s not adjacent. 59 1 SPEAKER: Yeah, it' s not adjacent, but I guess 2 within the neighborhood context, they are picking up some of 3 the olors . And the red might not exactly match, I guess, 4 the shutters and front door that you have. I mean, you have 5 a little bit more of a maroon where this might be a little 6 bit brighter, not quite as dark. Small stripes of, I guess, 7 the ellow and with the black, it' s kind of a neutral . 8 SPEAKER: Any suggestions? Just so we know what 9 we w uld be talking about if we were to talk about it? 10 MS. REED: I can see cream color, the color of 11 the ricks . Something that blends in with the structure. 12 SPEAKER: Your point is a solid color? . 13 MS. REED: Or black. 14 SPEAKER: Is it the magnitude of the stripes? 15 The rightness? Is it just the brightness of the stripes? 16 MS. REED: Does anyone else think it' s gaudy? 17 SPEAKER: Yeah, I see. 18 MS. REED: It's better than it was, that' s right. 19 SPEAKER: That' s gaudy (inaudible) . And I think 20 Perk ns is gaudy. Ruby Tuesday' s is gaudy. But I know, 21 being in business, busy I know how people think what they need 22 to make a business for it that would attract the customer is 23 something that' s outstanding (inaudible) . We are in a 24 commercial zone. I think these people have compromised and 25 I th nk they have made adjustments. They have paid 50 60 1 percent more for a building in our community than they are 2 anywhere else. I think they' re (inaudible) . 3 If I owned your property -- by the way, I sold 4 your building in the past (inaudible) . I understand exactly 5 where you' re coming from, and it's not consistent 6 (inaudible) . But I think we are in a commercial zone and 7 they have made a lot .of compromises. (inaudible) . It is an 8 attractor (inaudible) give the attention of people driving 9 by. 10 . SPEAKER: Can I ask the applicant is the awning a 11 fabric that you have standard on hand or could you say make 12 the black stripes wider than the other ones? 13 SPEAKER: It is a standard fabric. And I would 14 tell you if we end up changing the awning, we'll leave the 15 Cluck-U, too. I mean, we've lost all of our identity. 16 We've lost half our parts. We've lost our whole building. 17 There comes a point where you have to look at the economics 18 of the deal and say does it make sense and it comes to a ' 19 choice. 20 Do you like the present building where the trash 21 is still continuing -- Walter and I were out there this 22 morning. And he said there's more trash here this morning 23 than there was -- or this afternoon than there was this 24 morning. 25 I mean, let ' s face it. There comes a point to 61 1 where we have to walk away from the economics of the deal as 2 a stockholder of the company and it ' s just a choice. 3 I apologize if the awning' s offensive, but it' s 4 the best we can do. 5 SPEAKER: I' ll try then one more time. I guess I 6 feel the color range of the building generally and the way 7 they' re (inaudible) with the tinted block is one of the 8 (inaudible) it appears that it's a brighter orange anyway. 9 Where we finally gotten to is at the point where I feel the 10 building as a whole and the reasonably and adequately 11 (inaudible) standards, but the awning being the accent 12 feature and the fact that it' s something that could be . 13 changed was less of a concern than just the fabric 14 (inaudible) . That ' s the wrong word to use. Just the 15 fundamental approach to the whole building, which probably 16 won' t change a whole lot. Even if Waffle House leaves, you 17 know, the building is probably (inaudible) . 18 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Ms. Reed, are there any 19 other comments or concerns that you'd like to express? Is 20 that it? 21 It' s my impression that the awning remains as it 22 is according to staff' s recommendation and the applicant' s 23 wishes . 24 SPEAKER: I can support the building the way that 25 I (inaudible) . 62 1 MS. MICHOW: Is there anyone else here who would 2 like to speak? 3 SPEAKER: I just have one item. 4 MS. MICHOW: Sure. Your name? 5 SPEAKER: I'm Katie (inaudible) with the city' s 6 internet department. It' s an issue that I have discussed 7 with their engineer but I have not to my (inaudible) yet. 8 And that is on the north side of their building they were 9 showing a gas line coming out and actually extending onto 10 the Dara House property. 11 And I asked several times whether there was an 12 easement, what was going on with the existing line? They 13 told me it was not an existing line, and that they were 14 planning on talking to the gas company. I don't think it' s 15 going to be a problem, but I don't like having it on the 16 plans, the last set of plans that I saw and not (inaudible) . 17 SPEAKER: Michael Sean (inaudible) . I can 18 address that. With your concerns that you have voiced, and 19 it was standard that it was located over here as a side 20 venting gas meter. It has been moved over to this location 21 right here. And the existing gas meter is at this point 22 right here roughly on the existing building, that corner. 23 We're just going to move it to this back corner 24 and have the gas line come in from that point. And that is 25 reflected in the new drawings. 63 1 I like to say that as far as the last set of 2 staff comments that we did receive, we have made full 3 revisions to them and are ready to resubmit all of the 4 drawings, other than maybe there' s a few issues that we 5 worked out here that we have to show, but we have gone 6 through each of those. And I think the engineers have 7 spoken with you on the phone and gone item by item through 8 this issue (inaudible) . So I think we addressed that. 9 MS. MICHOW: Ms . Reed? 10 MS. REED: Ms. Reed, the owner of the Dara 11 House . There ' s that driveway to the north of the proposed 12 building in between the Dara House and the narrow driveway. . 13 Is there any reason why the Waffle House customers would be 14 taking that? I know the tree' s there. There's an obstacle 15 there. But is there any reason that they'll come in? I 16 wouldn' t want people coming in. 17 SPEAKER: Sure. We intend to self park on our 18 site. And entrance is from the alleyway and from our -- you 19 can see our entranceway. 20 MS. REED: Those are pretty obvious then. 21 SPEAKER: Right. I don' t think so. I can' t 22 imagine that they would. 23 MS . REED: It' s not really used now. 24 SPEAKER: And I believe you have it pretty well 25 posted that that' s your parking lot. 64 1 MS . REED: Yes. 2 SPEAKER: So I can' t promise you that somebody 3 won't do it. 4 MS . REED: Right. But they're directed 5 otherwise. 6 SPEAKER: Exactly. 7 MS. REED: And then you did say earlier that the 8 Waffle House is set back more from the street than the 9 present building is; is that right? 10 SPEAKER: No, ma'am. 11 MS. REED: It' s not set back. 12 SPEAKER: No. 13 MS. REED: I was thinking you said you could see 14 the Dara House (inaudible) . 15 SPEAKER: Across the top. 16 SPEAKER: Well, because it' s lower, the Dara 17 House would probably stick up about this level. So from the 18 second floor, there would actually be views out of the 19 window as opposed to I guess the views that are out there 20 now. I mean, this is the view I guess out your bay window 21 now and of the wall. You can' t really see over the Waffle 22 House now or the Cluck-U Chicken. 23 SPEAKER: The existing Cluck-U building I think 24 is 20 feet. And although we' ll have a 20-foot tall element, 25 the front part of our building will be closer to around 65 1 16. 2 SPEAKER: Which, as I was saying, was basically 3 your sill right here is going to be at about the same level 4 on the bay window. The bottom of your window on the second 5 floor. We were out there and actually measured it this 6 morning and it' s right at about 15 feet. Fifteen and a 7 couple of inches . So you' ll actually have views now out 8 towards the CSU campus and possibly beyond, depending on 9 weather and things like that. 10 SPEAKER: Hopefully it will enhance your 11 opportunity (inaudible) . 12 MS. REED: Yeah. Maybe clarify the landscaping 13 on the north side wall. 14 SPEAKER: Along this area? We were placing some 15 upright junipers and plants haven' t grown on the north side. 16 Compact Oregon grape holly. 17 As of today, we were speaking with Clark, and we 18 were talking about other possibilities of maybe placing that 19 landscaping with possibly a vine. Boston Ivy was one thing 20 that came up that would have the ability to kind of cover 21 and kind of buffer a little bit more of this wall along here 22 and possibly one or two of them that would be kind of good. 23 That would kind of help break that wall up a little bit 24 more. 25 SPEAKER: We have confirmation that adding Boston 66 1 Ivy and what' s there actually is there is Oregon grape holly 2 compact and then (inaudible) . And you'd be able to replace 3 one of the grape hollies and one of the (inaudible) or 4 something like that with maybe a couple of Boston Ivy plants 5 and they' ll start creeping. 6 SPEAKER: We' ll just train them so kind of break 7 that wall up a little bit more. 8 SPEAKER: And staff is going to just accept 9 verbal agreement. 10 SPEAKER: We' ll make the change in the next -- 11 MS. MICHOW: On the landscaping plans do we need 12 (inaudible) ? 13 SPEAKER: That ' s what I 'm saying. I don' t think 14 we need a condition for that. I believe -- I know that the 15 consultant is a landscape architect. 16 MS. MICHOW: Do we have any other response or 17 rebuttal from the applicant? 18 SPEAKER: The only thing I 'd like to say is I 19 think we've worked with staff pretty diligently throughout 20 the process and Waffle House has made significant upgrades 21 to the building from what they normally do. And we' re 22 willing to be working with staff, as we said tonight, to try 23 to work out the fine details of things . 24 And we feel that the site plan, the project, will 25 be a tremendous enhancement to the site that' s there now. 67 1 And, honestly, somebody could come in and get a permit and 2 open the Cluck-U Chicken right back up and operate that 3 building without doing anything to it. Cleaning it up or 4 doing anything. 5 Waffle House would bring in a brand-new 6 building. Very clean facilities. Clean up the parking 7 lots, have nice landscape. And, again, I think we' re really 8 meeting the character of the neighborhood as closely as the 9 eclectic diversity that ' s already there. There' s no true 10 one style that' s in there. 11 We feel that we're meeting the Land Use Code in 12 these areas as well as the couple conditions to work out • 13 with staff on the next set of plans . 14 And we definitely would like to ask for approval 15 of this project and continue it moving forward and enhance 16 the community, the site, the lot, use the Dara House and 17 just the general neighborhood. 18 MS. MICHOW: Is that the resubmitted drawing -- 19 SPEAKER: Yes . 20 MS. MICHOW: -- of the building? And that ' s as of 21 today. And that ' s what the staff has relied on in changing 22 its position from denial to approval of conditions? 23 SPEAKER: That's right. 24 MS. MICHOW: Okay. So how will we identify 25 this? • 68 1 SPEAKER: You'll need a copy of that, I 'm 2 guessing. 3 MS. MICHOW: Do you have reduced copies? 4 SPEAKER: They should have a reduced copy. The 5 8-and-a-half-by-11 package color should have that 6 elevation that would call out the cornice treatments, the 7 frieze, the lintels, the base course. 8 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Does staff have anything else 9 to add? 10 SPEAKER: Yeah. Nothing in rebuttal. Just want 11 to clarify. I assume everyone here realizes that the 12 ugliness of the Cluck-U is a hundred percent irrelevant to 13 review in this project. 14 MS. MICHOW: With that I will close the public 15 hearing on this matter, and I thank everyone for being 16 here. 17 This was sort of an unusual hearing in that there 18 was more discourse and interchange than I typically like to 19 see in a hearing. But I think that was because of the 20 nature of the application and the stage at which it was 21 presented. 22 So I appreciate your patience, and I will be 23 issuing my decision at the latest within 10 business days, 24 and I will try to accommodate the applicant's request to 25 have it on or before next Friday. 69 1 SPEAKER: Can I ask you a question? 2 MS . MICHOW: Sure. 3 SPEAKER: When you say you will make recommends 4 for approval, I 'm not asking you to tell me but what are you 5 recommending? 6 MS. MICHOW: I have the choice to make a 7 recommendation or a decision on approval, approval with 8 conditions or denial. 9 SPEAKER: And, in fact, it' s clear, it 's a 10 decision. 11 MS. MICHOW: It is a decision. 12 SPEAKER: Right. Not a recommendation. 13 MS. MICHOW: Which is appealable. But it is a 14 final decision. So if you'd like to give me any of the 15 documents you have presented. 16 SPEAKER: (Inaudible) if that would assist you. 17 MS. MICHOW: Yeah, and then I 'd be happy to 18 return everything along with the tape. I can return, it to 19 staff (inaudible) . 20 All right. Thank you. 21 (The hearing concluded. ) 22 23 24 25 70 1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE 2 I, Karen Voepel, Court Reporter and Notary Public 3 for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that I have 4 trascribed the foregoing proceedings from an audio tape into 5 computer-aided transcription form, and that the foregoing 6 transcript is an accurate transcription of said audio tape 7 and the proceedings held, to the best of my knowledge and 8 belief. 9 Dated at Lamar, Colorado, this loth day of 10 November, 2002 . 11 12 13 Karen Voepel, RPR, CSR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25