Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT - 51-90 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)Planning Deparrtr_i 1 J� Citv of fort Collins August 17, 1990 Mr. Les Nordhagen 221 East 29th Street Suite 214 Loveland, CO. 80538 Dear Mr. Nordhagen: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our phone conversation of August 16, 1990 during which we discussed the concept of developing a "standard" restaurant in the R-H (High Density Residential) zone district at the corner of Prospect Road and College Avenue. As you are aware, the R-H zone district allows "standard" restaurant as a . use by right. Other restaurants, such as a "drive-in" and "fast food" must be processed and reviewed as a Planned Unit Development according to the Land Development Guidance System. Enclosed please find the Zoning Code's definitions of these three different types of restaurants. The Zoning Code makes a clear distinction between a "standard" restaurant and a ""fast food" restaurant. It is important to note that only a "standard" restaurant is allowed in the R-H. Also, please note that a "standard" restaurant is characterized by more than just the absence of a drive -through lane with pick-up window. According to the definition of a "standard" restaurant, the Code states: "A standard restaurant includes one or both of the following characteristics: . (1) Customers, normally provided with an individual menu, are served their foods or beverages by a restaurant employee at the same table or counter at which the items are consumed." Please note that a "fast food" restaurant is distinct in that its definition recognizes the "take-out" nature and the use of disposable containers. "A fast food restaurant includes both of the following characteristics: (1) Foods, frozen desserts or beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper, plastic, or other disposable containers; (2) The consumption of foods, frozen desserts, or beverages is allowed. encouraged, or permitted \\ ithin the restaurant building, within a motor vehicle parked upon the premises or at other facilities on the prcmiscs outside the restaurant building or for carry -out for consumption off the prcmiscs." It is the interpretation of the Planning Department that a typical Taco Bell facility would fall under the definition of a "fast food" restaurant, and therefore, would not be allowed as a use by right in the R-H zone. The current Taco Bell facility is considered a legal, non -conforming use since the restaurant was existing on the site prior to the zoning change to R-H in 1977. As a legal, non -conforming use, the facility may be remodeled or demolished and replaced as long as the replacement occurs with one year of the demolition. As a legal, non -conforming use, the facility cannot be expanded without being processed and reviewed as an "Expansion of a Non -conforming Use" by which the Planning and Zoning Board has final authority to grant, modify, or deny the request. A proposal to add drive-thru lanes and pick-up windows would be considered an expansion. If the property to the north were included in any re -development plan, then this would represent a change of use from office to "fast food" restaurant. Such a change, from a legal use to a use not allowed in the zone, would trigger the review by Planned Unit Development according to the Land Development Guidance System. It will be .recalled that a "fast food" restaurant would be reviewed by the criteria of the Business Service Uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. Preliminary calculations indicate that an expanded Taco Bell, with drive-thru lanes, would score only 29%. A copy of this point chart is enclosed. A minimum score of - 50% is required to allow the use. Please refer to pages 22 through 24 of the L.D.G.S. for detailed description of the variable criteria. There is a variance procedure by which the Planning and Zoning is authorized to allow a P.U.D. that does not meet the minimum point score. The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of this section under the following circumstances: "(1) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested; or (2) The strict application of any provision would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, provided that the variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose of this section." It appears there are a number of complicated issues relating to the proposed Taco Bell expansion with drive-thru lanes. For example, it is evident that the removal of the existing residential structure and replacement with a typical franchise stock plan would be unacceptable. These issues should be fully explored and evaluated before submitting for a Preliminary P.U.D. At your request, I have prepared a map outlining the area of notification for a neighborhood mccting. The neighborhood meeting must take place prior to formal submittal for a P.U.D. Upon submittal of the affected property owner mailing list, the neighborhood mccting will be scheduled. -tee If you have any questions of the Planning Department, please do not hesitate to call our office at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions that would apply to other City departments, I will be happy to forward your inquiry to the most appropriate staff person. It is my hope that this letter will clarify the situation at Prospect and College Avenue. Sincerely: Ted Shepard Project Planner cc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Mike Herzig, Development Engineer Gary Diede, Director of Engineering Greg Lanning, Project Engineer Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Director Carol Tunner, Historic Preservation Specialist Enc.