HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT - 51-90 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (2)TO: Ted Shepard, City Planner
FROM: Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director
RE: #51-90 Taco Bell Restaurant - Final PUD
The Advance Planning Division staff met to review and provide
comments to you on the application for planned unit development
approval for the Taco Bell. Because this project has several
interelated and complex planning issues, we felt it more
appropriate to respond in memo form. Our responses are based upon
the application as submitted. I would be happy to meet with you to
discuss these issues. The issues related to our area of interest
are as follows:
1. LAND USE
2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY/CHARACTER
3. SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS
1. LAND USE
The property is currently zoned RH, high density residential
district. The district is intended for areas containing high
density residential uses. Other supporting uses such as standard
restaurants, hospitals, offices and personal services shops are
permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The proposal is located in the "fringe" area as described in the
Eastside Neighborhood Plan. This area includes the predominant
nonresidential areas fronting along many of the arterial streets
in and adjacent to the neighborhood. The Plan indicates that the
kinds of uses allowed in the RH district should continue to be
permitted in this area unless substantial traffic impacts or other
negative neighborhood impacts are anticipated from these uses. The
impacts of these uses would be evaluated as part of the PUD or site
plan review process. Saving and renovating valuable existing
structures and visual compatibility with the character of the_
neighborhood is emphasized in the Plan.
The existing restaurant use was originally constructed as a "use -
by -right in the RH zoning district. In 1977, the 4 ipMi ion of
"restaurants" was expanded to differentiate between , fast-
food and standard restaurants. The RH zone was amended to allow
only standard restaurants as a "use -by -right". Fastfood and drive-
in restaurants are not allowed in the zone. The adoption of the
LDGS in 1981, permitted drive-in restaurants to be considered in
the RH zone as a planned unit development. The existing commercial
use is a legal, non -conforming use. The intent of the non-
conforming use ordinance is to allow the continuation of these uses
but to carefully monitor any expansion or change of use to assure
compatibility with the neighborhood.
Policy Review
As you know, in a PUD the appropriateness of a use in terms of
meeting the City's land use policies is evaluated by a project's
success or failure to earn the required number of points on an
applicable point chart. A drive-in restaurant is subject to the
criteria listed the "Auto -related and Roadside Commercial" land use
category of the LDGS. The intent of these criteria is to
discourage strip commercial development from occurring along the
City's highways and arterial streets, especially South College
Avenue. Further, the intent is to encourage these kinds of uses
in mixed use developments on larger parcels of lands either
contigous to or part of a larger commercial development containing
similiar kinds of uses, for example, neighborhood or regional
shopping centers.
In our analysis, the proposal earns 10 points out of a maximum
applicable 52 points for a percentage earned of 19%. Criterion #4
of that point chart requires that the use earn at least 50% of the
maximum points. The only earned points were for satisfying
criterion "h" which requires that the project be contiguous to
existing urban development. The project failed to earn points for
being located at a location other than at the corner of two
arterials; for not being a part of a shopping center; for being
less than two acres in size; for not being mixed -use; for not
demonstrating non-renewable energy use reduction; and, for not
proposing adapative use of the existing building.
Recommendation
The proposal is clearly a "strip retail development" along the
City's most important arterial street and is not consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan including the Eastside Neighborhood
Plan. This finding is solidly supported by the fact that the
project satisfies only 1 of 8 applicable criteria of Point Chart
D for a total score of 19%.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY/CHARACTER
The introductory statement to the "neighborhood compatibility"
criteria of the LDGS states that the LDGS "shall protect the
character of new and existing neighborhoods against intrusive and
disruptive development". Further, criteria #2, #5, #13, and #33
are applicable to this proposal and were considered by the Advance
Planning Division staff in its analysis.
Description of Neighborhood
The existing structures along the face of the block upon which the
new Taco Bell is proposed are one and two story in height and are
wood, stucco or brick construction. Of the five existing
structures, four are residential in appearance. The only non-
residential appearing
re the corner of Prospect ructure i the existing and are Taco Bell located
All of the residential structures
and Taco Bell Occupies
buildings are for
and Oftharchitecturally ruetures are of high Pies the fifth.
"Revival" significant as the g quality construction
existing period and "Mission" style architecture20's and 1930's
g structures appear to b. All Of the
in good or excellent condition.
The house to be removed and
formally surveyed others on the block have
however Y d to determine their historical not been
, it appears that this house as well as significance;
may be eligible for local designation others on
architecture and method of due the block
construction, to their distinctive
The setbacks of the existing buildings from College Avenue range
between 30 and 40 feet in width.
The block face
interspersed yi contains a number of
important factor in mature evergreens mature shade
in the character of theshrubs. These trees,
Of a few shrubs trees are an
site and lawn area along Prospect With the exception
is hard surfaced. Prospect Road
the Taco Bell
Each of the parcels
if not in the block have at least one
more. Parking has been located at the
which is traditional driveway cut,
exception and for the neighborhood, rear of the lots
traditional has parking along both Taco Bell is the
College for commercial street frontages which
ge Avenue. uses along other is
portions of South
The area on both s'
has its ides of College Avenue
own identity and presents north of Prospect Road
College Avenue. The mature vegetation and unique resident al architecture
as an important link to t ,
of Taco Bell, all of the structures he City s past.
most havingructures were sin with the exception
years. HihbSchool nPark ealto so office
use
esw thin the last 10 amily at one time,
of the area . The two b to the uniqueto 15
provides a pleasant transition n area (between Pitkin and
character
College Avenuehighly and Prospect)
Shopping Area/DowRegional Shopping Center" and Y intensive "South
to the core residential area. These blocks the Cas Mid -town
District, neighborhood also serve as a buffer
and the Laurel Historic
Policy Review
Maintaining this character Policy of the of this area has long statements of polio In 1977out, the City Council g been a stated
Of the block on the w st idea future developmentadopted several
property. of LureCollege and redevelopment
Y• These same policies Avenue facing
subject block as well. ' We believe the subject
that it was One of these are relevant to the
impractical to a Policies was the recognization
uses in the block and therefore t the continuation of
attention should be residential
given to the
0
Preservation
Tedev Old °uses, o Thesestructurall
the preservPmeatiof on the b oak on the Whave beenarch
setecturally significant
EncouraThe rs Goals and ob Of sting structur s andsidetreeColls. gl Avenue de to the
characte glsthe ticsPreservation states In
mall tof
C. Istics whichl nelghborhoo elopment goal
f u °f the Cit to
to 'Ltprotect anelghborhods a claritysandY encourag ng toth tiessand
In 1986 d prese Final identit g those de
b the Cit eve these lY, the Y to nei sign
Y the ado City'.
°bJectiv unique sub- LDGS eas includes 9hb°rhoods
"helpadoption o
FasOf the
tin Preservin the East for
Nei s area rwere furthecO comcritemunity.
histolde Neighborhood!nd enhancin gt1'Orhood plan r clar'
through
characte g the as a tool 1 o
momugh the r of the a Preservatio quality of life to
e Y to occur The Plan neighborhood isaad enhancement In the
1
Patible with the this cts a" however nizes that land use hems running
Re area; these changes are
commendation r °f the nei
ghborhoodhanges should be
South °Pinion the
is not
college Proposal
criteria cOnsl tentu witd to replace vitthe structure
a. of the LDGS, fortthe above Policie he Proposed Taco at 1530
arOP sed 1Tacoural design following reasons d Plans nor Bell
Bel - The to
hitecture l is not with
co buildings on 'the rkmanshi Compatible corporate designer
to newly devet block. The and residentialwlh the hi gh
gn of the
not appropriatepstgthisareas
� alit
foprinstanceoposed ac0 Beilra01 whilecterOf the ° her
b' Building l°cation. a new aPPropriate
sim]Bui in g setback w shopping center
, is
to be 10 - 20uilding setback Of the buildi feet feet k' ngs along the
C. Buildingcloser. The proposed boil On block are
Proposed b - scale - There g appears to be
the rest of t Ing is smaller in apparent
structures helps buildings on scaneigt.ibthe le, mascale of the bloc
Parking cps establish a sense of The scalsing e Of
k. n to
g lot. char istic unit the°rtio
Will be existing
d. Parkin reduced by to
block.
g - wit new buildin This '
in the block is maintained exception o g and
an Of Public Is
maintained along f the existin
andlwillsiOn into thehe ntroduction the rear the build' i co Bell. Parkin
scale of the e. n ibute estabishea largeuildin g
ghborhoodeducing tfront Yard alonking area and be
I
blockxshould Vegetation residentia g, College character and
be the Preservat of the most im ion of existing trees. aspects
the
mature
vegetation is a part of the character of this block and
neighborhood. During a recent site visit, at least seven large
trees on the site were observed, plus some mature evergreens. The
proposed plan indicates that three of these trees will be
preserved. The loss of these trees will negatively impact the
character of the block face. There is some question as to whether
the three trees shown to be preserved will indeed be able to live
given site development grading that will take place.
SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS
It is our desire to see the character of the block be preserved.
The removal of the building at 1530 S. College and the loss of the
existing vegetation are our primary objection and secondarily, the
introduction of the use. If the first two objections could be
resolved through the adaptive re -use of the structure and redesign
of the parking area to accomodate the existing trees, I believe
that we could support the proposed land use.
Some further thoughts is that some information on the plan was
missing including identifying all existing significant vegetation
and showing surrounding neighborhood information. Also, the
Planning Objectives did not address the issues that are described
in the LDGS.
Finally, the staff feels the current landscape plan is WEAK! Only
12% of the site is in landscaping. This is signif_'cuntly less than
what is typically expected (typically, landscaping ranges between
25 - 35%). At a minimum, the plan should include a landscaped area
along Prospect Road and additional interior landscaping. Also, the
wood fence may not be an adequate sound buffer. The applicant
should provide details and drawings concerning light spillage onto
adjacent residential areas. Finally, there seems t_ exc ssive
paving that could be replaced by landscaping (th escap '! 1e in
the drive-in is not necessary, nor is the one-way north- outh lane
in the parking area south of the new building).
I hope this information is useful in your review. have much
sympathy for you in dealing with all of the ssues, many
conflicting, that are likely to arise with this ppoposal.
"hilt 15 IN�-JjN J
061,
R0 w` � hFy L ��►E