HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT PRELIMINARY PUD 12.16.1991 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 51-90A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
December 16, 1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members
present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Tim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie
O'Dell, Renee Clements -Cooney, and Jan Cottier. Board member Jan Cottier left at 12:00 a.m.
Staff members present include Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark,
Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman,
Kerrie Ashbeck, Kayla Ballard, and Patti Schneeberger.
Mr. Frank presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 - Approval of Minutes from
the September 23, October 21, & November 18, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - Four Seasons, 7th
Filing, Final, #112-790; Item 3 - The Courtyards at Southridge Greens (Formerly Third
Replat of Mail Creek Village), Preliminary and Final, #9-82AE; Item 4 - Fort Collins Retail
Center, Applebee's, Final, #50-85F; Item 5 - The English Ranch Subdivision, Preliminary,
#75-86E; Item 6 - Fort Ram Village PUD, 2nd Filing Easement Vacation, #PZ91-71; Item
7 - Amendment to Chapter 29 of the City Code, and Item 8 - which was puffed for
is discussion, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the City Code, #54-91.
Mr. Frank presented the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 9 - Taco Bell Restaurant
PUD, Preliminary, #50-90A; Item 10 - Paragon Point PUD (Formerly Fossil Ridge), Overall
Development Plan, #48-91; Item 11 - which was combined with Item 10 but voted on
separately, Paragon Point PUD (Formerly Fossil Ridge), Preliminary, #48-91A; Item 12 -
Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary, #42-91; and Item 13 - South Fort Collins
Veterinary Center PUD, Preliminary, #46-91.
Chairman Strom asked if there were any Consent items that the Board or members of the
audience wished to pull for discussion. There were no items pulled for discussion.
Chairman Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman if anything more in depth was needed
besides the staff report to deal with the variance requirement in the English Ranch Subdivision.
Mr. Eckman felt that the variance included in the English Ranch recommendation was implicit
that the variance go with the approval.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 through 7. Member Cottier
seconded the motion.
The motion to approve carried 7-0.
11
1
0
•
P&Z�
December 16, 1991
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CITY CODE - ##54-91
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that this ordinance was to cover the problem which
exists when a planned unit development is approved on the property and yet someone might
decide at a later time to develop the property under the uses by right that exist in whatever zone
the property might be in.
A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision confirmed the right to develop a use by right.
If the developer had obtained approval for a planned unit development and instead decided the
property was to remain undeveloped, the developer would be prevented from expansion on the
property; such as an outbuilding of some sort.
The change to the amendment was in paragraph (a) which changed the wording from ....pursuant
to any other uses which are otherwise authorized as permitted uses ....except upon the
occurrence of one of the following events, to ....as a use specifically permitted by right
....except for the purpose of continuing or expanding any legal use which existed upon the
property at the time of the approval of the planned unit development plan.
Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the Amendment to Chapter 29 of the
City Code.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
The motion to approve carried 7-0.
TACO BELL RESTAURANT PUD - PRELIMINARY
Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval with two
conditions that relate to the hours of operation of the restaurant and the treatment of the right
turn lane on Prospect Road should the capital project not be constructed.
Al Hauser, Architectural One P.C., briefly discussed the design features of the project. The
project initially began in November of 1990 when it was brought to conceptual review with a
proposal to demolish or move the Wickersham residence and construct a new Taco Bell. That
proposal met with resistance from the staff in terms of demolishing the house and it was
recommended that the residence be remodeled.
2
0
•
WIN
The site plan which was presented at the board meeting addressed the adaptive reuse of the
residence. That provided some significant issues that dealt with neighborhood character,
architectural compatibility, and saving the existing trees. The current design that was presented
allowed the developer to save all but one of the existing trees.
Mr. Hauser pointed out that the historic preservationists hoped that the remodeling of this
structure would pave the way for all properties in the area to follow suit in more adaptive reuse
in that area as opposed to demolition of the structures.
The redevelopment also offered the removal of a small outdated restaurant design, replacement
of the outdated pole sign, it will close excessive curb cuts, addition of the drive-thru service
lane, increase in the onsite parking, ten percent of the new area was dedicated to the City of
Fort Collins in order for improvements to the intersection, and the improved landscaping and
fencing.
There was a variance requested regarding the insufficient point chart, which should be offset by
the neighborhood compatibility standard and the saving of the existing trees.
The main level of the existing residence that is being redeveloped will serve as the seating areas
of the restaurant and the addition which goes on the eastside will accommodate the kitchen and
restroom functions.
There were two neighborhood meetings that took place. The concerns that were brought up at
those meetings weren't in regard to design but addressed to management concerns.
Member Walker questioned the corporate policy in regard to signage located in windows. He
felt if signs were allowed to be placed in the windows it would detract from the architectural
compatibility.
Mr. Hauser stated that the signage on the west elevation which consists of one large window and
the other windows are very small, which are surrounded by a lot of brick detail, will remain
unchanged. The larger window would be an etched glass window with the Taco Bell logo.
Aside from that there would be a very small monument sign which was detailed on the site
development plan.
Mr. Les Nordhagen, Taco Caliente, Inc., addressed the painted signage in the windows. He felt
that they would be unable to put those types of advertising in the windows due to the nature of
the windows.
3
11
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Member Walker commented on the hours of operation. Part of the rationale on this issue was
that the dining room will be closing on Friday and Saturday at midnight and the drive-thru will
remain open. Part of the concern was addressed by the circumstances that might occur in the
parking lot or have occurred in the parking lot of the existing Taco Bell.
Mr. Nordhagen stated that on Friday and Saturday night there is a security service from 10 p.m.
til 3 a. m.
Member Walker asked if the dining room is closed at midnight on Friday and Saturday per these
conditions, would that also imply that the parking lot be closed or would the security then
enforce a vacating of the parking lot by automobiles that might be parked there.
Mr. Nordhagen stated that he does not plan on barricading the parking lot. He felt that security
patrols are efficient to keep the parking lot clear. He stated that the drive-thru cannot turn back
into the parking lot area so therefore would deter people from entering the lot to eat their food
or to hang out.
Chairman Strom asked since the existing garage was going to be torn down, was it possible to
reclaim some of the brick for use in the sign foundations.
Mr. Hauser stated that they had planned to reuse the brick and the use of the roof tile to
supplement some of the tile needs of the new remodeled structure. He would not suggest to
have the reuse of the material to be a condition of approval but would take a look at the means
of carrying out that request.
Chairman Strom asked for public input.
Mr. Robin Cuany, 1523 Remington Street, made three requests, one of which may have been
solved. His first request was that there be no gaps in the fencing. His second request was that
the fence be at least 6 feet high and made with 1" thickness of wood to create a sound barrier.
His third and final request was that the hours should not be later than 11 p.m. on weekdays and
not later than midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. He understood that the dining room would
not be operated after those hours, but requested that the drive-thru follow the same hours.
Mr. Craig Olson, 1605 Remington Street, felt that the hours of operation suggested are
inadequate. On numerous occasions Mr. Olson had called not only the police, the owner, and
the manager to receive no satisfaction of resolving the problem. Mr. Olson stated that on one
occasion was told that Taco Bell had security, he has yet to see them. Mr. Olson pointed out
that on the weekends there are trash problems which occur the morning after. He felt that the
City was paying for the owner to make a profit. As a taxpayer he felt he did not want the
4
0 •
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Police Department playing the role of a security guard for a profiting corporation. Mr. Olson
also commented that he has paid for extra trash removal due to the negligence of the owner.
He felt that Taco Bell was the worst neighbor anyone could have. Traffic problems were also
a factor of Mr. Olson's discussion. He felt that the intersection on College and Prospect is a
hazard and wished that they would deal with that situation before any other matter.
Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time.
Chairman Strom asked Planner Shepard to address how the traffic situation was being dealt with.
Particularly the congestion of traffic in the left turns off Prospect into Taco Bell. Also, what
are time frames for the improvement of this intersection.
Mr. Shepard stated that the curb cut that causes the problem was on Prospect and there was a
proposed median project that was scheduled for 1993 or 1994. This project would build a
median that would prevent left turns into the site from east bound traffic. The interim solution
would be to construct a "pork chop island" at the intersection of the curb cut. The curb cut
which exists on College Avenue closest to Prospect Road will be moved 100' to the North to
prevent any hazards that are currently occurring.
Chairman Strom asked Mr. Shepard to briefly itemize the current recommendation of the
business hours.
Mr. Shepard recommended that the hours be limited to a midnight closing of the dining room
on Friday and Saturday and a midnight closing of the entire restaurant on Sunday. This
condition was silent on the closing of the drive-thru lane. The idea was that the rowdiness and
loitering occur in the parking lot and dining room and that with a drive-thru lane they must exit
the premises immediately.
Member Cottier questioned the fence height along the alley. She referenced the staff memo
which stated the fence height varies from 4'8" to 5'4" and would prevent any light spillage from
the menu board. But the staff memo also stated that the menu board was going to be 6 1/2' tall.
Member Cottier asked, how does the fence prevent light spillage when the menu board was a
foot taller than the fencing?
Mr. Shepard stated that the fence was mounted on an 8" vertical curb, plus the fence height.
He felt that the architect might be willing to look at that aspect and make sure the fence does
block the light from the menu board.
Member Cottier then referenced that the actual fence height did not take into account the curb
height which the fence sits on.
5
0 •
P&ZMV971 S
December 16, 1991
Mr. Shepard agreed, then proceeded to suggest reviewing a slide which indicates the fence/sign
height factor.
Member Clements -Cooney had a couple of issues with signage such as: window painting, she
did not feel it would be compatible with this type of building structure and would like to see that
as a condition; and the signage on the west elevation she does not feel is compatible with the
neighborhood and that visual integrity of buildings along College might be diminished with that
particular sign and would also like that to be a condition of excluding that sign from the west
elevation.
Member Walker was still concerned with the fact of loitering in the parking lot even though the
drive-thru would take away from that. He felt that the people would only have to drive around
the block to come back to the parking lot. He wondered what the feasibility would be of adding
a condition stating that there would be a midnight closing of the dining room and the parking
lot.
Mr. Shepard thought that this was the time to make that condition at the Preliminary and would
give everyone a month to work on that condition with the legal department, with Mr. Hauser
enabling him to explore some design aspects of that, and with Mr. Nordhagen to see if it is
feasible.
Member Walker stated that he was not asking for barricades, but to have something in writing
to the fact if someone is loitering in the parking lot that it is not the question of what are they
doing there, but a question of that they are there and this establishment is closed.
Member O'Dell addressed a question to public attendee Mr. Olson, in regard to the noise level
and where was it coming from.
Mr. Olson answered that the noise level was rather high and it was coming directly from the
Taco Bell parking lot.
Member Walker readdressed the closing hours of the restaurant and asked Deputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman to give his legal opinion on stipulating a midnight closing of the parking lot.
Mr. Eckman responded by wondering how that would be enforced as a condition of approval,
for example if someone drove into the parking lot because they had a flat tire, etc., technically
there would be a zoning violation. So he is fearful the enforcement may cause a problem and
how would the City enforce this condition in respect to the owner of the property and keeping
the people off the site.
r
0
•
P & Z NIENUTTES
December 16, 1991
Member O'Dell agreed that the condition would be helpful, because there would be a little more
legal standing as to stating that the parking lot is closed, whereas in the past that wasn't the case
and could not state or enforce that.
Mr. Eckman agreed with Member O'Dell's comment as to the owner would be in zoning
violation if people were using the parking lot as a hangout; and therefore be more inclined to
keeping the parking lot vacated.
Member O'Dell had asked Mr. Shepard to make clear to the people on what the variance
contains and what the reason was for having a variance.
Mr. Shepard explained that the variance that was before the board was auto related and was in
regard to the roadside commercial point chart. The minimum required score is 50 percent and
this project scored a 38 percent.
The LDGS has a provision that allows the board to grant variances and the criteria is very
specific, for example, if the applicant brings forth a plan that is equal to or better than a PUD
that does meet the point chart then the board is in power to grant that variance. This particular
site does not get points for mixed use, does not get points for more than 2 acres, and does not
get points for not being located at two arterial streets. These are some locational disadvantages
that the site has now through historical parcelization of property in the older part of town.
The developer brought forth a plan that staff feels is equal to or better than a plan that could
have had mixed use or could have been a strip mall. Staff felt that the saving of the house, and
the addition of the Wickersham property brings forth a lot of significant value to the architectural
character of the block, to the compatibility of the neighborhood, and the saving of the mature
trees.
Member O'Dell commented on how she was really pleased with Taco Bell and the City on what
they have managed to come up with and working together. She felt that it is great for the City
and hopefully will be great for Taco Bell. Member O'Dell also sensed that from meeting with
the neighbors over the last several months has helped Taco Bell become aware of the problems
and as a result will be able to alleviate those problems. She felt that the trash problem,
unfortunately even though it originates at Taco Bell, it is not Taco Bell that is throwing the trash
on the ground, it is our kids. So she felt that maybe as parents and concerned citizens we could
do something to help our kids pickup their trash, but she did not feel it is Taco Bell's
responsibility.
7
., 9 •
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Member O'Dell moved to approve the Taco Bell Restaurant P.U.D., Preliminary, #50-90A
with the variance request. Also with two conditions, one having to do with the hours of
operation indicating that the dining room dose on Friday and Saturday night at midnight
and second if Choices 95 Capital Improvement Project is not constructed then the
temporary river rock along Prospect Road be replaced by irrigated turf or other living
ground cover. She also added a condition that there be no temporary window signs allowed
on the building.
Member Cottier seconded the motion with a clarification on the third condition.
Member O'Dell clarified that there should be no window signs, such as temporary ones,
excluding the etched glass sign.
Member Cattier stated that the second still stands.
Mr. Shepard wanted to clarify condition number one on the midnight closing on Friday and
Saturday night of the dining room and that there be a midnight closing of the entire restaurant
on Sunday.
Member O'Dell clarified that Sunday is part of the motion.
Chairman Strom commented that he is particularly pleased with the adaptive reuse of the
residence and applauds the applicant and his architect for being willing to spend the time and
effort to make this project work. The plan as proposed is definitely worthy of a variance. He
would like to see, however, the applicant still working with the neighbors in regards to making
a restaurant fit in with a residential area.
The motion to approve carried 7-0.
PARAGON POINT P.U.D. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #48-91 AND PARAGON
POINT P.U.D., PRELIMINARY, #48-91A,
Chairman Strom felt it was in best interest to combine for discussion purposes item 10 and 11,
but vote on each item separately.
Mr. Steve Olt stated that he would proceed with the description on the overall development plan
and move directly into the description on the preliminary. Staff recommended approval of
Paragon Point P.U.D., Overall Development Plan, #48-91, and also recommended approval with
conditions of Paragon Point P.U.D., Preliminary, #48-91A with a density variance to the