Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSATURN OF FORT COLLINS PUD REFERRAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 34 90A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILTO FROM: THRU• DATE: Comn&ity Planning and Env onmenta&rvices Planning Department K*z4YCO) ;i:`:110 Mayor and Members of City Council Stephen Olt, City Planner A'��`� Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director' March 13, 1995 RE: Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D., Referral of an Administrative Change - Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding 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..,bulding at 101 East Foothills Parkway in Fort Collins. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall_ be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter, b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 FAX (303) 2?1-6378 TDD (303) 224-6002 Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D., Referral of an Administrative Change - #34-90A. i FMSa urn I'd Mil I aB�TGRN oI Fa��aiu ,_ � �•••�••• l all 80UTHEAST ELEVATIO" NORTH ELEVATION WE8T ELEVATION / :1 q I I VT R SATUiN AGLORBTRAME CHANGE . 1 SATURN OF '• FORT COLLINS Fprt CO4M COlp1A00 -_ WHITE VERSION CACH CICYI.INI. IMITURN o a NORTH ELEVAT" ( j M1,57,57,57,711 WEB! ELEVATION % "1HO CHN S TO THIS ELEVATION' . Ma VOT SATUM ADM USTRATIVE CNANDE . 4 S'ATURN OF FORT COLLINS n BRICK VERSION Activity A:. ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CR17C=%1A I APPLICABLE ---- CRfT=.?lA 0 Is the c enan Itie M the =eriar>) apclicacte7 satisfieel C=IT=.?ION I 3 a Yes No I If no. please ex^fain A1. i `! COMMUN(-WICE CRI �. � _ Sciar Orie^��icn 1.= Cc.morehensive Flan 1.3 Wiiclifeiacit=t 1.d iVline cl De^CSit - JcrSitiveArcaS 1.6 L_hcs of A.c7,c:.'Lural Imccr-=? C -- 1. / c: ercv Ccr.Se^/a;ier, '_-.- A.ir Quality 1.12 ResidertialD-ensity 2 NE:G--r=�G= =�'p0 COME,=Ti Bike Trans 2.2 iicirc F!_ =rent and Ori=rat 2 Na r2i F_= .:rss 2.= Circ<;:aic_n and Far'�i 2.5 A,C� �J 2:6 = ecesuran Cir. as*icn 2.7 ni �.: iitecur- -- 2.3 Suiicinc 1-iejcn7 and views - — 2.S Shading 2.10 Sciar Across 2.41 1 F;istcrc iescurces 2.12 Set:racKs 2.13 Landsc=ee 2.14 Sims 2.15 Site Lighting 2.16 Noise and Vioraic_n 2.17 Glare cr Heat 2.18 Ha ardous Materials A 3. ENGINEERING CRME_RIA 3.1 Utiii,ty Capacity 3.2 Design Standards 3.3 Water Hazards I i IV T rei a; ed j I rz-erred j j I i F1 7=-1A1 cHazards Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised'1Df — h 1994 _ -6I-US� t •JI Y i I. The Appeal: Appellant Eugene A. Markley (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: 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(l)]; The Staff referred to several statements in the guidelines to evaluating architecture under the Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.) Criterion 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: 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. Staff Response: The architecture of the building, in its form and scale relative to the other site characteristics (landscaping, topography, setbacks), was not in question with the City Staff's evaluation of the request to alter the exterior appearance of the existing Saturn Dealership. Staff denied the Applicant's administrative change request, and subsequently recommended denial of the referral of the administrative change to the Board, based on the proposed alteration of the exterior appearance constituting a change in the character of the existing development that was not in compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.7 of the L.D.G.S. (attached). This criterion asks the question "Is the architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses and activities that are planned and does it contribute to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way?" The guidelines set forth in this criterion (and addressed by Staff in their evaluation) deal with architectural character, building materials, and E E color. The Board did not consider the guidance given for evaluating architectural character in areas that have not developed a "distinct characterel. 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: Staff -Response: Staff would .agree with the.Appellant about there not being a distinct architectural character established in this "neighborhood". However, the existing Saturn Dealership building is a one-story traditional brown brick structure with a brown painted metal roof. It was originally constructed in 1973 and used for a period of time as a savings & loan financial institution. This was at the same time that the Foothills Fashion Mall was being completed. Other businesses in the surrounding area. began to appear over time. Staffs position, based on their interpretation of Criterion A=2.7, is that this is not new development but, in fact, one of the original structures in the "neighborhood" that presents an attractive image and should, in its present form, set the standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The Board relied on the Staffs assertion that the building materials to be used with our proposed change are different than 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: 0 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 i_n the Crystal Gardens Plaza and Steeles Market, and the light colors used on the exterior of Goodyear, SteelesFoleys, Sears, Payless Drug, The Salad Company, Boston C, hicken, East Foothills Plaza, The Square and Blockbuster Video. Staff Response: The comparisonsused by Staff in. their report and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board included six surrounding businesses (Foothills Fashion Mall, Sears, Perkins Restaurant, Goodyear Auto, Red Lobster Restaurant, Colorado National Bank) that were considered to be the most directly related, physically and visually, to the Saturn Dealer -ship. References were made to the predominance of brick on these surrounding buildings. Site, scale, and form of this building in the context of the surrounding area was not an issue in the. Staffs evaluation of the request. Staff felt, however, that. the introduction of grey and white stucco and white -painted brick would not be in context with theexisting architectural character (appearance) of the surrounding "neighborhood". Several_ of the businesses referenced by the Appellant have little or no physical or visual relativity to the Saturn Dealership, based on their- locations. Based on the applicable All Development Criterion A-2.7 in the L.D.G.S., the Planning and Zoning Board considered and properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in its evaluation of the.Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D., Referral of an Administrative Change. (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 Staffs Report, nor is the variety in building design, color, and architecture evident from the slides. Staff Response: The comparisons used by Staff in their report and recommendation to the Planning and Zonng.Board included six surrounding businesses. referred to earlier that were considered to be the most directly related, physically.and visually, to the Saturn Dealership. References were made to the predominance of brick on these surrounding buildings, generally being tan in color, and tan to brown wood and metal accent/detailing materials. It was noted in the Staff Report that the elevation of the Goodyear- Auto Center (directly to the north) facing the Saturn Dealership was predominantly a dark brown brick. Staff felt that the introduction of grey and white stucco and white -painted brick would not be in context With the existing architectural character of the surrounding "neighborhood". 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 misled into thinking that the building height would increase, therefore affecting their decision on the proposal. Staff Response: A question about the overall height of .the existing building. and proposed addition to the building was asked by a Planning and Zoning Board member. The architect/planner for -the owners, Markley Motors Inc., responded to the question by indicating that the addition would not exceed the overall height of any point on the existing building. City Staff, when asked by the Board if the overall height of the building would be increased with the addition, answered that their understanding was that the height would not increase. The height of .this building addition was never an issue with Staff. The Planning and Zoning Board received all relevant evidence offered by the Applicant, the Appellant, and City Staff and did not consider evidence substantially false or, grossly misleading. City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D., Referral of an Administrative Change - #34-90A APPLICANT: Vaught -Frye Architects 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: Markley Motors Inc. 3401 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a referral of an administrative change to the Planning and Zoning Board for a request to alter the exterior appearance of the existing building for the Saturn of Fort Collins Automobile Dealership. The property is zoned HB Highway Business and is located at the southeast corner of South College Avenue and East Foothills Parkway. RECOMMENDATION: Denial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for approval of a referral of an administrative change to the Saturn of Fort Collins planned unit development (P.U.D.) * is not in compliance with All Development Criterion A- 2.7: Architecture in the Land Development Guidance -System (L.D.G.:S..). COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTIVIENT i r. Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: HB; existing auto -related (Goodyear Tire & Auto Center) S: HB; existing restaurant (Perkins) E: HB; existing retail (Foothills Fashion Mall) W: HB; existing financial (Colorado National Bank) The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D. on August 27, 1990 for an automobile dealership on a site that had been originally approved for and operated as a savings & loan financial institution. The building was constructed in 1973; however, it had been vacant for a period of years prior to the change in use. An administrative change to the P.U.D. to allow a small, one. --story addition (385 square feet in size) on the north side of the building for a car wash bay was approved in September, 1993. 2. Administrative Change Request: On November 14, 1994, the applicant requested administrative approval of a 1,700 square foot addition (+/-) on two floors (900 sq. ft. main floor and 800 sq. ft. basement) on the east side of the existing building on this site and an alteration in the exterior finish and appearance of the building. The request is to change the existing building facade from a traditional brown brick to white -painted brick and provide alternating grey and white stucco bands on the building addition, representing the corporate colors of the Saturn Company. # Section 29-526F(6)(a) of the L.D.G.S. allows '-'minor" changes to the P.U.D. which may be approved administratively by the Director of Planning, whereupon a permit may be issued, after being. reviewed against the "All Development Criteria" as contained in subsection (D) of this section. The Di -rector of Planning may refer the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board and, if so referred, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal to the City Council as provided in Section 2-47 of City Code. A change to a P.U.D. is considered to be "minor" if it does not include the following: (1] A change in the character of the development. (2] An increase by greater than 1% in the approved number of residential dwelling units.. Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 3 [3] Any change in the development that would normally cause the project to be disqualified under the applicable criteria. This request was denied based on the proposed alteration of the exterior appearance of the. building constituting achange in character of the development. On December 1, 1994, the applicant submitted a revised administrative change application, with building elevations, showing the proposed addition to be of the same brick material and color as the existing building. The administrative change for a 1,700 square _foot addition to the building (on two floors) does not meet any of the aforementioned characteristics in Section 29- 526F(6)(a) of the L.D.G:.S.. Therefore, it could be reviewed and approved administratively by the Director of Planning. This administrative change was approved with a condition requiring that the proposed new building.materials and colors match the existing brown brick. The applicant has requested that the denied administrative change be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration of the building exterior materials and colors. The request for a proposed change from a traditional brown brick structure to a white -painted brick and grey/white stucco structure would constitute a change in character of the existing building in its physical setting. Staff is recommending denial of this referred administrative change request based on the non-compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.7: Architecture in the L.D.G.S. The mandated portion of this criterion asks the question "Is the architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses and activities that are planned and does it contribute to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way?" The information provided as "guidelines" for Criterion A-2.7, which is used to evaluate whether a specific criterion has been met, is as follows: - The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that the function, quality and appearance of the proposed structure is acceptable when considered within the context of the neighborhood. Building character is extremely important in a neighborhood that has developed a distinct architectural character. Generally, building materials should be similar to the materials already being used in a neighborhood context. Materials requiring low maintenance are recommended over high maintenance materials. For example, materials with integral color are generally recommended over materials that need to be painted. Saturn PUD - Referral of an Administrative Change February 6, 1995 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Color should be used as an extension of architectural style to facilitate blending into the neighborhood, as well as providing a way of unifying the development. Usually, the color of the building materials should draw from colors that already exist in the neighborhood. The existing land uses surrounding the Saturn Automobile Dealership contain a significant amount or predominance of brick on the buildings. Examples of this are a tan brick on the lower 2/3 of the adjacent Searsibuilding, the Foothills _Fashion_Mall'(to the east) being entirely of a_red/brown" brick,' Perkins Restaurant (to the south) having real/brown brick on the -lower 1/3 to 1/2 of the building, Goodyear Auto (to the north) having a predominance of dark brown brick on the elevation facing Saturn, the Red Lobster Restaurant'f(to the southwest) having tan brick on the lower-1/2 of the building, and the'Colorado National Bank.building (to the west) being entirely of the same brown brick that is presently on the Saturn building. Other materials on these buildings are wood and metal and are tan to brown in color. Introduction of grey and white stucco and white -painted brick would not be in context with the existing architectural character of the surrounding "neighborhood". 3. Land Use: The existing land use, Saturn of Fort Collins Automobile Dealership, is not being changed with this request. The use of the site will continue to be solely an automobile dealership. 4. Design: Architecture: The existing building is a one-story traditional brown brick structure with a brown painted metal roof. A canopy consisting of steel columns, beams, and ties painted a light to medium grey is on the southeast side of the building at the main entry. FINDINGS of FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for the referred administrative change to the Saturn of Fort Collins P.U.D. for an alteration to the exterior appearance of the existing building, staff makes the following finding of fact: * The request is not in compliance with All Development Criterion A-2.7 Architecture in the Land Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.).