HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRADLEY BARR AUTO DEALERSHIP PDP FDP TRANSFER TO ZONING DEPT FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW - 64 93E - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - CITY STAFFSteve O t - spra eymp age
At this point I am only sharing my opinion about this matter and my reservations about
approving the application as a building permit review. I welcome any comments
anyone has to help set me straight, or slap me up the side of the head! I do have 5
weeks of vacation leave built up. Would this be a good time for me to take a long
vacation? So, where do we go from here? Bob and I are meeting today at 1:30.
Originally, the meeting was for him to "pass the baton" to me, and bring me up to speed
on the P&Z board comments. But in light of this, maybe the meeting will be something
more. Paul has told me that he can't come to a meeting today, but I shared with him
the above issues. He said he could go either way on this. So it appears that it
becomes a policy issue. Obviously we expose ourselves to a suit. And I can see the
headlines now "Spradley Barr can't open due to staff disagreement"! They want to
open next week, so if we decide this should go back to the P&Z Board, we should
probably issue a TCO or letter of agreement, stating that they need to comply with
whatever conditions and process is decided upon, and let them open in the meantime.
Or do we go to ZBA and ask for an interpretation? Or do we just approve the plan and
get it over with?
Steve O - sprad ey.wp age
M
It should be a "no-brainer" for me to approve the Spradley Barr (SB) display lot plans
through the building permit review process since the Planning staff has already routed
the plans, received and analyzed the comments, and made a recommendation to
approve the project to the P&Z Board based on compliance with the standards.
However, in order for me to approve the plans, it has to be determined that the display
lot is an accessory use that is allowed as a building permit review (Sec. 4.17(B)(1)(a)).
After reviewing the Code in light of what happened at P&Z last Thursday evening, I do
not yet agree with the decision that the use is an accessory use. Therefore, I believe
that the project shouldn't be approved as a building permit review project. Some of my
reasons for putting us in this predicament are as follows:
1. I agree that the SB display lot is a parking lot as we define the term. However,
nowhere in the definition language does it even hint that a parking lot is always
an accessory use. In fact, a "parking lot" is a listed Type 1 or Type 2 use in 9
districts, and a listed BP use in one other district. Therefore, the Code is saying
that there are times when a parking lot is a principal use.
2. Occasionally, what we usually consider to be a principal use turns out to be an
accessory use. For instance, Hewlett Packard has a large cafeteria, but the
restaurant is an accessory use, not a principal use. The Marriott has a retail gift
shop, but the retail store is an accessory use, not a principal use. The University
Park Holiday Inn has a hair salon, but this personal service shop is an accessory
use. The Spradley Barr building has numerous offices, but the principal use of
SB is not an office building. Since customary principal uses can sometimes be
accessory uses, I believe the reverse must also be possible. Meaning that
customary accessory uses can sometimes be principal uses.
3. By definition, an "accessory use" is "customarily used with, and clearly incidental
and subordinate to the principal use of the land orbuilding..." A display lot is
certainly customarily used with a car dealership, but I don't believe such display
lots are clearly incidental and subordinate. On the other hand, an
employee/customer parking lot does satisfy all 3 criteria of the definition. People
don't go to SB for the thrill and excitement of parking in the customer parking lot.
They go there for the thrill and excitement of looking at new cars in the
showroom. Even though the display lot is not under a roof, I believe that it is an
extension of the showroom. It's sole purpose, due to it's unique design and
lighting features, is to display inventory and attract customers. Because of the
design features, purpose, and location, it is hard to classify this lot as clearly
subordinate to the building. Rather, one could say that it is the dominating
feature of the streetscape. Accessory parking lots on the other hand, normally
don't contain the unusual design features and extra lighting fixtures that
accompany display lots. They are more clearly incidental and subordinate.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Building and Zoning Department
City of Fort Collins
May 13, 1998
Spradley Barr
c/o Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Eldon:
The Spradley Barr Vehicle Display Area project, originally submitted to the City for processing
as a Type 2 review, has instead been processed as a Building Permit Review. This means
that the Current Planning Department has transferred the project file to the Zoning Department
for review an a— p off_
After reviewing the project, I find that the site and landscape plans that were submitted to the
Planning & Zoning Board (with a revision date of April 22, 1998) are in compliance with the
applicable standards of the Land Use Code, provided the following revisions are made: 1) The
plans be revised to show an acceptable pedestrian walkway that links to the street sidwalk
connection currently shown near the northeast corner of the site, and 2) the plans include a
note stating that a 42" minimum height guardrail be constructed on top of any portion of the
retaining wall that is within 3' of the College Avenue sidewalk.
I have also reviewed the alternative compliance site lighting report and I agree with the
conclusions of the staff of the Planning Department and Light & Power Department, finding
that the alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.4 of the Land Use Code
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of the Section.
Therefore, the alternative site lighting plan is approved. Please be advised however, that any
deviation from the approved plan and method or timing of illumination contained therein, will
require additional review and approval by the City.
Please resubmit 3 copies of the revised site and landscape plan as noted above. This new
plan, assuming the revisions are acceptable, will become the approved plan.
Sincerely,
40-L'-J�
Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
CC: Kriss Spradley, Spradley Barr
Bill Barr, Spradley Barr
Lucia Liley, March & Liley
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning
Steve Olt, Current Planning.
Is I North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO S0522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 • FAX (970) 224-6134