Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSATURN OF FORT COLLINS PUD REFERRAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 34 90A - CORRESPONDENCE - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL1 ® ® r) J r February 21, 1995 CITY CLERK Fort Collins City Council 300 Laporte Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Notice of Appeal Saturn of Fort Collins P;U.D., Administrative Change - #34-90A To The Members of the City Council: As an owner of Markley Motors, Inc. and its Saturn Dealership subsidiary, I appeal the February 6, 1995 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for an administrative change to alter the exterior appearance of the existing Saturn Dealership building at 101 E. Foothills Parkway. The board members stated their reasons for denying the change.as: preference for brick over stucco, preference of dark colors over light colors, belief that the business was already attractive and successful with a good image, and that the area had an "established architectural character" that this change would not be compatible with. My name, address and telephone number are: Eugene A. Markley, 2109 Country Club Cove, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, home - 482-2894, business 226-2213. The Markley family has operated a family -owned, automobile business in Fort Collins for 59 years. We currently provide jobs to approximately 150 people and generate a considerable amount of sale tax revenues to our local and state governments. The Markley family operates their business conscientiously and responsibly, with a concern for community pride. We have grown, changed and improved over the years and each of our prior fifteen building projects has been done and accepted as being in good taste. This request is another opportunity for us to improve our business and its part in the community. As grounds for this appeal, I assert that the Planning and Zoning Board committed the following errors: (1) The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter [Section 2- 48(1)]; The Staff referred to several statements in the guidelines to evaluating architecture under LDGS Criteria A-2.7, on which the Board relied, which emphasized the established character of the neighborhood and the need to fit in and be compatible by looking the same or very similar to other buildings. The Board failed however, because it was not presented to them by the Staff, to consider and apply the following guidance: "The anpropriateness of the architecture will not be evaluated in isolation. How considerations and elements will be -considered." There are elements of this building's design which were not considered (small square footage, low -profile one-story building, berming and established landscaping with bushes and trees). It was improper and contrary to the evaluation guidelines for the color and building materials element of the architecture to be evaluated without considering the other offsetting design elements. The Board did not consider the guidance given for evaluating architectural character in areas that have not developed a "distinct character." The Board applied the guidance supplied to them by Staff, which was intended for neighborhoods with distinct architectural character (examples: historic neighborhoods, historic old Town, residential areas). This building is located on an entirely commercial section of College Avenue which has only fully developed within the last several years. This area of Fort Collins does not have an established, traditional or distinct architectural character.. The Board failed to recognize the variety and diversity of the scores of business buildings in the area, and therefore, did not apply the correct standards of attractiveness and quality to this requested change. The provision which should apply to this request is: "In areas where .the The Board relied on the Staff's assertion that the building materials to be used with our proposed change are different that those which are already in use in the area, and that therefore, the change is inappropriate. The fact is that several businesses in the immediate area utilize stucco (Dellenbach Chevrolet,. Sears, Foleys, Crystal Gardens Plaza). Even if it could still be found that the materials were dissimilar, they then failed to apply the provision of the guidelines that states: "If dissimilar materials differences in materials." There was no consideration given to other factors about the building which are or would be similar to other buildings in the neighborhood, for example the low profile, single story and horizontal lines seen in the Crystal Gardens. Plaza and Steeles Market,.and the light colors used on the. exterior of. Goodyear, Steeles, Foleys, Sears, Payless Drug, The Salad Company, Boston Chicken, East Foothills Plaza, The Square and Blockbuster Video. (2) The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading [Section 2- 48 (2) (c) ] . In finding that the change requested would be incompatible with the existing architectural character of the neighborhood, the Board relied on several pieces of either false or misleading evidence presented by the Staff. The Staff misrepresented that the buildings in the neighborhood are predominantly brick and dark in color. The only visual comparison available was misleading in that just a few businesses could be seen in the background of the slides. The variety of building materials is not accurately described in the Staff's Report, nor is the variety in building design, color, and architecture evident from the slides. I plan to present slides or photographs at the appeal hearing which will prove that the individual buildings and neighborhood character is not primarily brick and that there is no established or distinct architectural character in this area. There was confusion at the Planning and Zoning hearing about the height of the building before and after the addition of the parapet. The building height with the proposed parapet will be exactly the same as the roofline as it now exists, and will in fact hide from view the heating and cooling equipment mounted on the roof. Because of the confusion, the Board may have been mislead into thinking that the building height would increase, therefore affecting their decision on the proposal.. ® 0 OL: I request that the City Council overturn the Planning and Zoning Board's February 6, 1995 denial of the administrative change request. J