Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROBERTO'S BURRITOS EXPANSION PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL ..... SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING (POSTPONED TO UNDETERMINED DATE) - 35-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 16 Member Mickelsen stated that issues such as parking versus pedestrian traffic needs to be resolved. She did not believe that it would not be fair to not allow future growth of businesses in this area because of the possibility that the major landowners may want to expand in the future. Member Colton believed that it is not a matter of creating more parking but the property owner has the right to make sure that he has parking for his business and is not utilized by others that have leased it or mitigated the circumstances. Until an agreement is made, he could not support the variance. Member Strom moved to postpone Roberto's Burritos Expansion until the December meeting and directed Staff to attempt to convene a meeting between the major interested parties and the businesses in this area to find a way to facilitate an agreement that will give the Board a longer term perspective on the parking in this block. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion to postpone carried 5-1 with Member Mickelsen in the negative. GLENMOOR DRIVE PUD - PRELIMINARY - #8-95 Member Bell pulled this item to discuss the wetlands on this site and to discuss the letter regarding the traffic situation. Mike Ludwig, Project Planner, stated that a memo from Rob Wilkinson, from the City's Natural Resources Department, and Glen Schlueter, from Stormwater Utility Department, indicated that a connection of the road does go through the wetlands area. Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Department, pointed out the location of the wetlands. He stated that there are a couple of wetland patches in the vicinity of the roadway. These wetlands have been surveyed for rare plants but none were found. There are also wetlands located along some drainage ditches that surround the site and off site to the west. He had informed the developer that the stormwater facilities needed to be designed in such a way that the wetlands that were being disturbed would be replaced within the limits of the stormwater facilities. There is hydrology to do this and the wetlands that are on site are not of such unique character that they could be replaced. The condition addresses the need to make sure that the engineering plans are coordinated with site plans and the need to protect or replace wetlands such that Planning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Olt replied that both the land uses are in existence, both occur on the site and are allowable uses and supported by the point chart and the LDGS. The businesses in this area recognize the fact that there is a difference between the day time use and the night time use. The burden of where the parking needs falls is a concern and questions are not totally answered at this point. Physically there is limited parking and there is no potential for additional parking. Member Strom asked for explanation as to why denial was recommended to the parking variance last month and this month approval is recommended. Mr. Olt explained that an awareness and an agreement needed to be established from the other businesses regarding the proposed expansion and parking. The recommendation was made based on this fact. Member Strom asked if notification was sent to the surrounding area of this proposal. Mr. Olt replied that a notification was sent. However, there was no neighborhood meeting held. In this case, it was more appropriate for the applicant to assume the responsibility of making the proper notifications to make. the owner/operators aware of the intent. Member Strom commented that this is the type of urban small business context that the Board should encourage. However, two of the major land owners are opposing this project and may have plans for their own buildings if parking is not required. Member Bell commented that she supports this expansion but does not believe that other businesses agree to the parking situation. She asked if there is some way the Board can suggest discussion among the parties of interest to resolve this issue. Member Davidson commented that the majority of the signatures on the petition does not represents anything other than they agree that Roberto's can park on the property. Member Bell commented that this section of the community is moving in the right direction with the concept of the Midtown Village group. This is a prime opportunity to get this group off the ground and create some stability for this area. Chairperson Carnes commented that the impacts need to be mitigated Planning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 14 Doug Waterson replied that this was strictly through observation of being in business at this location for seven years. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the city would have governmental immunity. to any lawsuits regarding the parking. He recommended that two separate votes be made on this project. The rules for the variance in the LDGS, on Page 108, states "A variance request may be granted by the Board if you determine that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor the impair the intent and purposes of the LDGS." Staff is suggesting the first category of variance which reads `That by reason of exceptional topographical soil or other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar to the site..." undue hardship would be caused to the subdivider by the strict applications of any provisions of this section. Chairperson Carnes asked for clarification regarding the basis for a variance to the parking code. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the parking code does not come into play as a mandatory requirement in this context. This is a PUD and its Criteria A 2.4, Vehicular Circulation and Parking, is the only criteria the Board needs to be concerned about. If the parking code is referenced below the dark line, it is not part of the criteria. In the LDGS, on Page 12, the information above the line constitutes the criterion which is mandatory. The information below -the line constitutes guidelines which are used to help in deciding whether the criterion was met. A variance does not need to be granted to the parking code itself. Member Colton asked how the Board would review the undue hardship that could be placed on other businesses by the expansion and increase in traffic. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that if the Board finds that the request is detrimental to the public good then the variance should not be granted. Member Mickelsen commented that bringing more business to a commercial neighborhood is detrimental because it would increase pedestrian traffic. Member Bell commented that there should be more of an agreement of the Midtown Village businesses. Two of the major players do not feel comfortable with this project. Member Colton asked if there was land use issues in regards to this business being a restaurant and a salsa manufacturing site. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 13 Member Strom asked if the Midtown Village group had discussion about working out a cooperative agreement so all the businesses can have continued parking access. Jim Waterson replied that he talked with Mrs. Chin, owner of the Marty Falk building, who replied that there was no problem with the increase in traffic during the evening hours or shared parking. CITIZEN INPUT Dick Messick, Boulder resident and owner of Rocky Mountain Records and Tapes building, stated that his business is an attraction to this area. However, there is a limited number of parking spaces. He did not believe that 90% of the traffic is pedestrian. He stated that he has not seen an overall general plan and he was not included in the letter mailing. He asked for insurance that the traffic would not increase in this area. He conferred with the owner of the Garment District who responded that he was disgruntled with this plan because it would hamper further development for him. He believes that there should be more parking since these businesses are next to the university. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Member Davidson asked if other businesses own parking or are they leasing parking. He also asked what was the square footage of the parking and who owns title to that parking. Mr. Olt replied that he did not know the square footage of parking in this area but in the south portion of that block, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Messick probably own and control the majority of the parking spaces. It is difficult to define the parking footage since there is businesses and residential in this area. Member Mickelsen asked how many parking spaces do the businesses have that are on Laurel Street. Mr. Olt replied anywhere from 4 to 9 parking spaces. The Pickle Barrel, in its expansion request, were required to have 9 parking spaces for employees. Member Bell asked for clarification on how the statistics were derived on the 90% of the traffic is pedestrian traffic and asked that if this creates future difficulty for other businesses if this project is. approved, could there be lawsuits against the city. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 12 further exasperated with the increased seating in the restaurant. Because of this physical setting, Staff felt it was important that there was an understanding with the small business community about the shared parking needs that exist in the center. A .letter of acknowledgment was prepared and circulated by the applicant to business owners in the area. Letters of approval have been received from 19 out of 27 businesses in that area. Staff is recommending approval. Member Bell pulled this item because she wanted more of a sense of what had been agreed upon by other businesses in that area. Jim Waterson, applicant, stated that a letter was sent to 18 surrounding businesses and they received 19 in return. Doug Waterson, applicant, stated that the addition would bring in evening traffic and would not increase the lunch customers. The lunch customers is a fast food operation. He stated that 90% of their traffic is pedestrian traffic. The parking situation has been discussed at Midtown Village meetings. Jim Waterson commented that they need this expansion because they are crowded not only for the restaurant but for the salsa production. Dick Waterson, applicant, commented that he is new to town and complimented the Board for their work on making Fort Collins a nice place. He stated that the main problem was the parking. This block is a unique block and the businesses in this area agree to share the parking. He added that some of the addition will be used for storage. Member Strom stated that two of the key players in terms of the parking are Rocky Mountain Records and Tapes and the Garment District who own most of the parking area. He asked if the applicants have discussed the parking situation with them and if an agreement has been worked out. Jim Waterson replied that he discussed this with Jim Stevens, owner of the Garment District, who was in complete agreement with the parking. He added that they currently have 5 spaces to the north of the building plus two spaces that he rents from Mr. Stevens. However, other restaurants in the area have encroached upon Mr. Stevens' property. On the other hand, since this area has been rezoned, he had no notification of the rezoning which made it difficult for the businesses in that area. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing November 20, 1995 Page 11 Member Colton would like to see landscape buffering who live to the north of the property and had concerns with a potential parking problem between the employees and visitors. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that there is no provision for the Board's review of the landscaping in the group home special review. Christine Bryan, applicant and owner, stated that there are four parking spaces. She added that to the north of the property, there is a divided area with a six foot high fence where the cars would park. In the future, she would like to put a garage in that location. As far as the parking problem, her residents range in age from 75 to 103 and will not drive and there would probably be no more than one visitor per day. She provides a van for transportation of the residents. She will only have one staff member during the day hours, one in the evening and one in the overnight hours. Member Bell moved to approve the Shamrock Manor Group Home. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Ms. Bryan stated that this is her 20th year in this business. She thanked the neighborhood for being congenial and their support. Member Bell restated the motion by moving to approve the Shamrock facility with eight elderly clients in the group home. Member Davidson concurred to the motion restatement. The motion passed 6-0. ROBERTO'S BURRITOS EXPANSION PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #35-95 Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report. He stated that there would be three parking spaces on the property located on the north side of the building along with bicycle parking. The applicant indicated that there would be up to 5 employees at any given time on a major work shift. Parking requirements of the LDGS and City Code are two parking spaces for every three employees. The City's recommended guideline for off-street parking for commercial is 8-11 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Based on those guidelines only, the parking requirements for this project would be 16 parking spaces. This property is contained by the building and will be dependent upon surrounding properties for parking. The overall parking would be