HomeMy WebLinkAboutWAFFLE HOUSE - PDP - 17-02 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL70
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 I, Karen Voepel, Court Reporter and Notary Public
3 for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that I have
4 trascribed the foregoing proceedings from an audio tape into
5 computer -aided transcription form, and that the foregoing
6 transcript is an accurate transcription of said audio tape
7 and the proceedings held, to the best of my knowledge and
8 belief.
9 Dated at Lamar, Colorado, this 10th day of
10 November, 2002.
11
12
13 Karen V Jepel, RPR, CSR,
14
15 My commission expires May 22, 2005.
16
17
r
18 _.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKER: Can I ask you a question?
MS. MICHOW: Sure.
SPEAKER: When you say you will make recommends
for approval, I'm not asking you to tell me but what are you
recommending?
MS. MICHOW: I have the choice to make a
recommendation or a decision on approval, approval with
conditions or denial.
SPEAKER: And, in fact, it's clear, it's a
decision.
MS. MICHOW: It is a decision.
SPEAKER: Right. Not a recommendation.
MS. MICHOW: Which is appealable. But it is a
final decision. So if you'd like to give me any of the
documents you have presented.
SPEAKER: (Inaudible) if that would assist you.
MS. MICHOW: Yeah, and then I'd be happy to
return everything along with the tape. I can return it to
staff (inaudible).
All right. Thank you.
(The hearing concluded.)
NN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKER: You'll need a copy of that, I'm
guessing.
MS. MICHOW: Do you have reduced copies?
SPEAKER: They should have a reduced copy. The
8-and-a-half-by-11 package color should have that
elevation that would call out the cornice treatments, the
frieze, the lintels, the base course.
MS. MICHOW: Okay. Does staff have anything else
to add?
SPEAKER: Yeah. Nothing in rebuttal. Just want
to clarify. I assume everyone here realizes that the
ugliness of the Cluck-U is a hundred percent irrelevant to
review in this project.
MS. MICHOW: With that I will close the public
hearing on this matter, and I thank everyone for being
here.
This was sort of an unusual hearing in that there
was more discourse and interchange than I typically like to
see in a hearing. But I think that was because of the
nature of the application and the stage at which it was
presented.
So I appreciate your patience, and I.will be
issuing my decision at the latest within 10 business days,
and I will try to accommodate the applicant's request to
have it on or before next Friday.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And, honestly, somebody could come in and get a permit and
open the Cluck-U Chicken right back up and operate that
building without doing anything to it. Cleaning it up or
doing anything.
Waffle House would bring in a brand-new
building. Very clean facilities. Clean up the parking
lots, have nice landscape. And, again, I think we're really
meeting the character of the neighborhood as closely as the
eclectic diversity that's already there. There's no true
one style that's in there.
We feel that we're meeting the Land Use Code in
these areas as well as the couple conditions to work out
with staff on the next set of plans.
And we definitely would like to ask for approval
of this project and continue it moving forward and enhance
the community, the site, the lot, use the Dara House and
just the general neighborhood.
MS. MICHOW: Is that the resubmitted drawing --
SPEAKER: Yes.
MS. MICHOW: -- of the building? And that's as of
today. And that's what the staff has relied on in changing
its position from denial to approval of conditions?
SPEAKER: That's right.
MS. MICHOW: Okay. So how will we identify
this?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ivy and what's there actually is there is Oregon grape holly
compact and then (inaudible). And you'd be able to replace
one of the grape hollies and one of the (inaudible) or
something like that with maybe a couple of Boston Ivy plants
and they'll start creeping.
SPEAKER: We'll just train them so kind of break
that wall up a little bit more.
SPEAKER: And staff is going to just accept
verbal agreement.
SPEAKER: We'll make the change in the next --
MS. MICHOW: On the landscaping plans do we need
(inaudible)?
SPEAKER: That's what I'm saying. I don't think
we need a condition for that. I believe -- I know that the
consultant is a landscape architect.
MS. MICHOW: Do we have any other response or
rebuttal from the applicant?
SPEAKER: The only thing I'd like to say is I
think we've worked with staff pretty diligently throughout
the process and Waffle House has made significant upgrades
to the building from what they normally do. And we're
willing to be working with staff, as we said tonight, to try
to work out the fine details of things.
And we feel that the site plan, the project, will
be a tremendous enhancement to the site that's there now.
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16.
SPEAKER: Which, as I was saying, was basically
your sill right here is going to be at about the same level
on the bay window. The bottom of your window on the second
floor. We were out there and actually measured it this
morning and it's right at about 15 feet. Fifteen and a
couple of inches. So you'll actually have views now out
towards the CSU campus and possibly beyond, depending on
weather and things like that.
SPEAKER: Hopefully it will enhance your
opportunity (inaudible).
MS. REED: Yeah. Maybe clarify the landscaping
on the north side wall.
SPEAKER: Along this area? We were placing some
upright junipers and plants haven't grown on the north side.
Compact Oregon grape holly.
As of today, we were speaking with Clark, and we
were talking about other possibilities of maybe placing that
landscaping with possibly a vine. Boston Ivy was one thing
that came up that would have the ability to kind of cover
and kind of buffer a little bit more of this wall along here
and possibly one or two of them that would be kind of good.
That would kind of help break that wall up a little bit
more.
SPEAKER: We have confirmation that adding Boston
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. REED: Yes.
SPEAKER: So I can't promise you that somebody
won't do it.
MS. REED: Right. But they're directed
otherwise.
SPEAKER: Exactly.
MS. REED: And then you did say earlier that the
Waffle House is set back more from the street than the
present building is; is that right?
SPEAKER: No, ma'am.
MS. REED: It's not set back.
SPEAKER: No.
MS. REED: I was thinking you said you could see
the Dara House (inaudible).
SPEAKER: Across the top.
SPEAKER: Well, because it's lower, the Dara
House would probably stick up about this level. So from the
second floor, there would actually be views out of the
window as opposed to I guess the views that are out there
now. I mean, this is the view I guess out your bay window
now and of the wall. You can't really see over the Waffle
House now or the Cluck-U Chicken.
SPEAKER: The existing Cluck-U building I think
is 20 feet. And although we'll have a 20-foot tall element,
the front part of our building will be closer to around
63
1 I like to say that as far as the last set of
2 staff comments that we did receive, we have made full
3 revisions to them and are ready to resubmit all of the
4 drawings, other than maybe there's a few issues that we
5 worked out here that we have to show, but we have gone
6 through each of those. And I think the engineers have
7 spoken with you on the phone and gone item by item through
8 this issue (inaudible). So I think we addressed that.
9 MS. MICHOW: Ms. Reed?
10 MS. REED: Ms. Reed, the owner of the Dara
11 House. There's that driveway to the north of the proposed
12 building in between the Dara House and the narrow driveway.
13 Is there any reason why the Waffle House customers would be
14 taking that? I know the tree's there. There's an obstacle
15 there. But is there any reason that they'll come in? I
16 wouldn't want people coming in.
17 SPEAKER: Sure. We intend to self park on our
18 site. And entrance is from the alleyway and from our -- you
19 can see our entranceway.
20 MS. REED: Those are pretty obvious then.
21 SPEAKER: Right. I don't think so. I can't
22 imagine that they would.
23 MS. REED: It's not really used now.
24 SPEAKER: And I believe you have it pretty well
25 posted that that's your parking lot.
1 MS. MICHOW: Is there anyone else here who would
2 like to speak?
3 SPEAKER: I just have one item.
4 •MS. MICHOW: Sure. Your name?
5 SPEAKER: I'm Katie (inaudible) with the city's
6 internet department. It's an issue that I have discussed
7 with their engineer but I have not to my (inaudible) yet.
8 And that is on the north side of their building they were
9 showing a gas line coming out and actually extending onto
10 the Dara House property.
11 And I asked several times whether there was an
12 easement, what was going on with the existing line? They
13 told me it was not an existing line, and that they were
14 planning on talking to the gas company. I don't think it's
15 going to be a problem, but I don't like having it on the
16 plans, the last set of plans that I saw and not (inaudible).
17 SPEAKER: Michael Sean (inaudible). I can
18 address that. With your concerns that you have voiced, and
19 it was standard that it was located over here as a side
20 venting gas meter. It has been moved over to this location
21 right here. And the existing gas meter is at this point
22 right here roughly on the existing building, that corner.
23 We're just going to move it to this back corner
24 and have the gas line come in from that point. And that is
25 reflected in the new drawings.
61
1 where we have to walk away from the economics of the deal as
2 a stockholder of the company and it's just a choice.
3 I apologize if the awning's offensive, but it's
4 the best we can do.
5 SPEAKER: I'll try then one more time. I guess I
6 feel the color range of the building generally and the way
7 they're (inaudible) with the tinted block is one of the
8 (inaudible) it appears that it's a brighter orange anyway.
9 Where we finally gotten to is at the point where I feel the
10 building as a whole and the reasonably and adequately
11 (inaudible) standards, but the awning being the accent
12 feature and the fact that it's something that could be
13 changed was less of a concern than just the fabric
14 (inaudible). That's the wrong word to use. Just the
15 fundamental approach to the whole building, which probably
16 won't change a whole lot. Even if Waffle House leaves, you
17 know, the building is probably (inaudible).
18 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Ms. Reed, are there any
19 other comments or concerns that you'd like to express? Is
20 that it?
21 It's my impression that the awning remains as it
22 is according to staff's recommendation and the applicant's
23 wishes.
24 SPEAKER: I can support the building the way that
25 I (inaudible).
M
1 percent more for a building in our community than they are
2 anywhere else. I think they're (inaudible).
3 If I owned your property -- by the way, I sold
4 your building in the past (inaudible). I understand exactly
5 where you're coming from, and it's not consistent
6 (inaudible). But I think we are in a commercial zone and
7 they have made a lot of compromises (inaudible). It is an
8 attractor (inaudible) give the attention of people driving
9 by.
10 SPEAKER: Can I ask the applicant is the awning a
11 fabric that you have standard on hand or could you say make
12 the black stripes wider than the other ones?
13 SPEAKER: It is a standard fabric. And I would
14 tell you if we end up changing the awning, we'll leave the
15 Cluck-U, too. I mean, we've lost all of our identity.
16 We've lost half our parts. We've lost our whole building.
17 There comes a point where you have to look at the economics
18 of the deal and say does it make sense and it comes to a
19 choice.
20 Do you like the present building where the trash
21 is still continuing -- Walter and I were out there this
22 morning. And he said there's more trash here this morning
23 than there was -- or this afternoon than there was this
24 morning.
25 I mean, let's face it. There comes a point to
59
1 SPEAKER: Yeah, it's not adjacent, but I guess
2 within the neighborhood context, they are picking up some of
3 the colors. And the red might not exactly match, I guess,
4 the shutters and front door that you have. I mean, you have
5 a little bit more of a maroon where this might be a little
6 bit brighter, not quite as dark. Small stripes of, I guess,
7 the yellow and with the black, it's kind of a neutral.
8 SPEAKER: Any suggestions? Just so we know what
9 we would be talking about if we were to talk about it?
10 MS. REED: I can see cream color, the color of
11 the bricks. Something that blends in with the structure.
12 SPEAKER: Your point is a solid color?
13 MS. REED: Or black.
14 SPEAKER: Is it the magnitude of the stripes?
15 The brightness? Is it just the brightness of the stripes?
16 MS. REED: Does anyone else think it's gaudy?
17 SPEAKER: Yeah, I see.
18 MS. REED: It's better than it was, that's right.
19 SPEAKER: That's gaudy (inaudible). And I think
20 Perkins is gaudy. Ruby Tuesday's is gaudy. But I know,
21 being in business, busy I know how people think what they need
22 to make a business for it that would attract the customer is
23 something that's outstanding (inaudible). We are in a
24 commercial zone. I think these people have compromised and
25 I think they have made adjustments. They have paid 50
FAS
1 than what's here.
2
SPEAKER:
I agree. One thing that I'll say about
3
the awning, it was originally
submitted with the awning kind
4
of sticking out of the skirt on both sides of the building
5
and the applicants have
truncated it at the north wall so
6
that it kind of -- so
that now it kind of reflects an
7
orientation towards the
south or towards the right.
8
SPEAKER:
(Inaudible) you cross these windows.
9
We have removed that
and run it around just the side.
10
SPEAKER:
It's meant to emphasize. The awning is
11
now only on the front
and south sides. (inaudible) south
12
side and sort of leave
the north side as a transition area
13
as you go around the
building (inaudible) image. So we did
14
do that.
15
MS. REED:
It's now on the west side?
16
SPEAKER:
It's now on the west side.
17
SPEAKER:
And we removed the signage on the north
18
side.
19
SPEAKER:
To me having the awning is just great.
20
MS. REED:
Well, I like an awning but (inaudible)
21
that is in accordance
with the historical nature (inaudible)
22
SPEAKER:
I guess with the Mexican restaurant,
23
their awning is red,
white and green. And they're using
24
multiple colors.
25
SPEAKER:
It's not adjacent.
57
1 And, again, I don't want to read all the
2 standards. If you followed what I did read, though, so that
3 if that's an issue, clearly that is something that would
4 be open. But we did not raise the awnings to the level to
5 asking the applicants to change them although it did cross
6 my mind.
7 MS. REED: Can you change it?
8 SPEAKER: We prefer not to, and I'll kind of
9 explain to you why is because it is a signature. It is
10 something, quite frankly, that it's really one of the last
11 grasps -- this is a quite different store than one that we
12 normally do. It's kind of a last grasp effort for us to
13 keep some sort of identity.
14 And it comes down to -- or it may come down to --
15 I think that's something that we'd have to go back, and it
16 may come down to is it time to pull out and go away or is it
17 time to try to achieve some harmony?
18 SPEAKER: The only other alternative that we have
19 is the yellow back wood awning that we've used. A typical
20 Waffle House has a yellow fascia, which is really a
21 trademark of what -- you know, with the black plastic
22 letters, which is a trademark as their signage.
23 And we've gone to this -- this awning is our
24 standard building. But we have done a yellow back wood
25 awning that's sold yellow. But that to me is more offensive
56
1 and we do have a standard that says that corporate
2 signature, or however we word it, corporate signature
3 (inaudible) have to be modified to fit the local
4 conditions. So it's possible that it could be a subject for
5 discussion. It simply just didn't come up.
6 It struck me that it's, yeah, a little bit, yeah,
7 kind of stands out in contrast with the townscape. I think
8 if you want to talk about it, this is a good time and
9 place.
10 The standard that it would fall under is 3.5.3(d)
11 character and image. One cites specific design. This
12 standard was written, I would just give you the background,
13 specifically to deal with national franchise chains
14 (inaudible).
15 "Building design shall contribute to the
16 uniqueness of the zone district and the Fort Collins
17 community. Predominant materials, elements, features,
18 color, range and activity areas tailored specifically to the
19 site and its context.
20 "A standardized prototype design shall be
21 modified, if necessary, to meet the provisions of this Land
22 Use Code."
23 So that standard gives you a tool. And the
24 provision that you would be talking about are the 3.4.7, and
25 enhancing the historic resource.
40
1
seating. We serve on fine china. We serve on china.
2
SPEAKER:
We think it's fine.
3
SPEAKER:
We think it's fine. And so there's not
4
a whole lot of disposable take -away type of stuff. Most of
5
it is the Styrofoam
cups for coffee and things like that.
6
But generally those
make it a little bit further than the
7
parking lot.
8
MS. REED:
This is something that can't be
9
(inaudible) but I wondered if the staff that you're talking
10
about thought at all
about colors. The color scheme that's
11
done, they couldn't
clash more with the Dara House colors.
12
The orange and the black is that what it is?
13
SPEAKER:
On the awning?
14
MS. REED:
Uh-huh.
15
SPEAKER:
It is red, black and yellow.
16
MS. REED:
To me that's really -- it doesn't fit
17
at all with the Dara
House. But I know that's your
18
signature whatever,
trademark. Do you intend to do anything
19
about that? Or did
staff talk about that?
20
SPEAKER:
Oh, we didn't.
21
MS. REED:
Is that not an issue?
22
SPEAKER:
It certainly crossed my mind. I never
23
brought it up with anyone
else to talk about.
24
Currently awnings
are -- it's a (inaudible) feature
25
and common in the area.
It struck me as a corporate symbol,
54
1 filter that vents what's going to the atmosphere.
2 Does it get it a hundred percent? No, ma'am.
3 Once again, compared to what was there -- and
4 we're cooking waffles and we're cooking hamburgers. We're
5 not deep-frying. Deep-frying usually creates -- we don't
6 have a deep fryer at all. We cook everything on a flat
7 griddle.
8 So that is one area that we don't have to -- I
9 did notice that they have two ventilation systems. It was
10 obvious to me that they had two friers going at one time and
11 that's something that we just won't have. I mean, it's -- I
12 think you'll be -- I think it will be a significant
13 improvement over what you've had to deal with before.
14 MS. REED: Do you have take -away or take-out? I
15 have problems with a lot of trash (inaudible).
16 SPEAKER: I imagine that you did, because I don't
17 think they had a sit down eating area outside. And what our
18 design is, we do sell to -go orders.
19 SPEAKER: I can answer that. Less than 10
20 percent of our business is to -go. Waffles don't travel
21 well.
22 SPEAKER: Breakfast doesn't travel well.
23 MS. REED: There won't be outdoor seating then?
24 SPEAKER: No, there will not. Everything will be
25 enclosed inside the building. We won't have any outdoor
53
1 SPEAKER: Can I say something?
2 MS. MICHOW: Yes, of course. Your name?
3 MS. REED: I'm Judith Reed. I own the Dara
4 House.
5 When the Cluck-U Chicken was there, we had a
6 noise factor and we had fumes. The noise factor, I'm
7 wondering if we can (inaudible) is there screens or the
8 noise of the fans or whatever or are there fans outside?
9 SPEAKER: Our air conditioning systems might --
10 Let me kind of address it in two ways.
11 I think the type of air conditioning systems that
12 we use are modern as opposed to what's there for the Cluck-U
13 Chicken. And so I think you'll find that they're extremely
14 quiet comparatively speaking.
15 Compared to what's there now, since it's not
16 running, obviously, it's going to be probably a little bit
17 louder than what's currently there. But it probably
18 shouldn't be any more than your typical window unit. I think
19 there's even a window unit in the office that overlooks the
20 site that we're developing.
21 And from an odor standpoint, we use a ventilation
22 system that is designed to minimize odors. It's designed
23 to -- now you have to vent the atmosphere, so that's a
24 function of the use. But it is -- we've taken care to put
25 in a fairly heavy duty ventilation system that does have a
52
1 But we kept hearing the statement tonight and we
2 kept saying well, what would you like for us to do? And in
3 the spirit of the city, we feel like that we've worked with
4 the city of Fort Collins over and above any Waffle House
5 that I think any of you have ever seen.
6 So we would just like to get the plans approved
7 and move forward at this point.
8 SPEAKER: I would like to comment.
9 MS. MICHOW: Your name please?
10 SPEAKER: Andy (inaudible.)
11 I've lived in Fort Collins since 1969. I've sold
12 real estate since 1979. And for as long as I can remember
13 there's been this god -ugly structure on this lot that's
14 (inaudible) now it's Cluck-U. And it's finally --
15 SPEAKER: We're going to change the name, too, by
16 the way.
17 SPEAKER: Finally, we're getting this eyesore
18 off of our main street and these guys coming in and taking a
19 chance and putting this building up there that I think would
20 be a not just an improvement but an incredible improvement
21 over that spot on our main street.
22 I personally want to thank you for it. But I
23 hate driving by that ugly, ugly store.
24 SPEAKER: We considered Cluck-U Waffles, but we
25 changed our minds.
51
1 The point is you just don't have a whole bunch of
2 silver or otherwise equipment sort of like, you know, not
3 thought about. The point is (inaudible).
4 MR. BARON: Could I make a closing statement on
5 that or something?
6 MS. MICHOW: Sure.
7 SPEAKER: Just to let you know, a typical Waffle
8 House, and we had a picture, I don't know where it
9 was at, I was just going to show you what we build in
10 interstate system (inaudible) and you've seen some of them
11 in Denver. We just built one in Parker, Colorado.
12 But we kept hearing the statement tonight, a
13 typical size is forty parking spaces. We're taking a risk.
14 We've got what? Eighteen? (Inaudible.)
15 The cost of this building, even though I'm sure
16 it's not relevant to what you're saying is 150 percent of
17 what a normal building cost and then you add the land and
18 the development.
19 And it's not the guys from Atlanta coming in and
20 walking away. We have a local franchisee who will operate
21 this restaurant. And he's been with the Waffle House system
22 for eighteen years. And he operates Longmont; he operates
23 Loveland; he operates Fort Collins, too. So it's going to
24 be a local person. We just happen to do all of their real
25 estate for them.
50
1 built up to this point, I guess, right here, which is this
2
small
L. And this other part came through in the last year
3
with
minor amendments.
4
SPEAKER: I think we ought to say that if you're
5
going
to go out and find buildings that don't meet the
6
code
--
7
MR. COWELL: That's not my intention.
8
SPEAKER: -- then I think you should say that and
9
then
let the decision -maker --
10
MR. COWELL: No, the reason I ask is so we can
11
get some
ideas which we haven't done that.
12
SPEAKER: No, but (inaudible).
13
MR. COWELL: Right. Well, the issue --
14
SPEAKER: The (inaudible) buildings that don't
15
have
this. And if you think that's leading to the idea that
16
that's
a factor that we should weigh in and not do it here,
17
then
say so and otherwise then it's not relevant to be able
18
to find
another building, especially one that wasn't built
19
under
the Land Use Code.
20
SPEAKER: How old is the Land Use Code?
21
SPEAKER: 197. I know right next door the next
22
apartment,
because I commented on that one similarly.
23
It should be simple. I even think that this
24
metal
mesh screen that's a dark color and the top has to be
25
open
for venting. You know, it's got to work.
49
1 some green metal structures. But the code simply requires
2 that all rooftop mechanical equipment be screened from both
3 above and below by integrating the look of the building and
4 roof design to the maximum extent feasible.
5 MR. COWELL: And the reason I'm asking, so we
6 can get some idea.
7 SPEAKER: Yeah. Some kind of metal screen.
8 MR. COWELL: So we can take pictures and
9 (inaudible) and not screened metals. I'm curious as to how
10 that happens.
11 SPEAKER: Right. Again, this town is full of
12 developments of various vintages, most of which you had seen
13 built prior to this code. And like I said, I think this
14 code was a response of the community and they're saying time
15 out.
16 MR. COWELL: Is this built to code?
17 SPEAKER: That's probably prior to this Land Use
18 Code.
19 MR. COWELL: But clearly this structure was just
20 completed within the last three or four -plus.
21 SPEAKER: You mean in addition to the building?
22 MR. COWELL: Yes.
23 SPEAKER: I know that it was first built as a use
24 by right prior to the (inaudible).
25 SPEAKER: Right, well, the existing building was
1 around those.
2 This is actually -- it's also the least visible
3 from Canino's Restaurant across the street. I know that at
4 least it's visible from there.
5 The code simply requires that it be screened.
6 3.5.1(i)(3) and (6).
7 And one of my other responses is that none of
8 this is about looking at the current tenants in the
9 building, the massage therapists. This is about building
10 in the city that tries to accomplish through standards
11 (inaudible) and so forth.
12 For that reason, if we could, the code just
13 simply says that it's got to be screened. I'm still looking
14 for the exact.
15 MS. MICHOW: Well, if it's screened, then it's
16 got to be screened.
17 MR. COWELL: Could I ask you a question? I'm
18 Barry Cowell with the Waffle House.
19 Have any other developments recently screened
20 theirs so we can get some ideas on what would work?
21 SPEAKER: Yes, the new city office building on
22 the next block over. Now, it is new, and it was built under
23 the Land Use Code, and we did make our facilities people do
24 it.
25 And yes, they consolidated their equipment into
47
1 attention that we, as we mentioned, we screened the
2 utilities, the mechanical equipment from the ground. And
3 there's an issue with code that requires them to be screened
4 from above even up to five stories, regardless of what's
5 there.
6 And we've proposed a top screen, which I do think
7 would work. I would prefer, if staff agrees, to forego that
8 until such time that we have determination that there's
9 going to be -- first of all right now we're looking at two
10 windows. I think we can provide something that shows that
11 it's not an attractive -- basically what I'm saying is I'd
12 prefer not to do the screens. I do think that they may be a
13 maintenance issue.
14 SPEAKER: Should we respond to that one? That's
15 sort of unrelated.
16 MR. BARON: I would like to write it in as a
17 condition of approval. That we're willing to add those
18 screens at such time as it becomes an issue.
19 SPEAKER: It's an issue now. So it would be one
20 of two subjects.
21 MS. MICHOW: Yeah. That is an outstanding issue,
22 Clark, according to the staff report, correct? The
23 mechanical equipment, screening?
24 SPEAKER: Yeah, although I thought again today
25 they suggested that they could provide a screen that goes
46
1 one of these friezes was proposed for the front of the
2 building, yet was not going to have any signage on it, so
3 that it looked kind of like a chalk board, frankly, black
4 and only with a white outline around it. So that was the
5 thing with the black.
6 But I do think it will be more in keeping with
7 the architecture and enhance the architecture more and have
8 it more related to the color of the block. Although I'm not
9 positive, the black wasn't a do or die issue if there's
10 going to be signing on there.
11 And so, again, I think what we're talking about
12 is having signage go on the front. And one of these was on
13 the north side which really didn't make sense.
14 So that's what we agreed on, plus a little bit of
15 background on the black.
16 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And with that description,
17 does the applicant agree to that condition relevant to the
18 signage?
19 MR. BARON: Yes, we do. Walter Baron of Waffle
20 House.
21 MR. MICHOW: Do you have anything to add to the
22 presentation? I note there are four conditions that staff
23 has recommended in the memo dated today's date.
24 MR. BARON: One of the things that I did want
25 to -- I mean, one of the issues that's been brought to my
45
1 believe the applicant has agreed to in terms of a sign
2 frieze for the record.
3 SPEAKER: It is a continuation of the 8-inch
4 module which is found at the corners or west side of the
5 building up above the awning to the cornice element. And
6 then starting there and also starting one course of block
7 above the awning. You're into the area that would be known
8 as the frieze panel. And it would be bounded by EIFS with
9 two sort of step -- a band of EIFS that looks like a
10 double band because it's stepped, with a stepped detail.
11 Terraced back. So that it's not just a single pressed -in
12 recess but there's a step to the north (inaudible) feature
13 just a little bit of detailing around it.
14 It now fits within the coursing of the masonry
15 clearly. That EIFS treatment would extend up and actually
16 be essentially unified, either actually unified or appear to
17 be unified with the top piece so that, again, the frieze is
18 starting to be more substantial by integrating with that top
19 piece.
20 The in -fill of the frieze panel I believe is
21 acceptable either as block or as EIFS if you want to
22 create it as a background for the signage.
23 A number of the comments that the applicants
24 made, I would have a response to. One was the black, and I
25 didn't like the black. That was related to the fact that
44
1 MS. MICHOW: Sure.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Ken Williams with the Waffle
3 House, and I'd just like to say that we did ask for a lot of
4 direction in the beginning to see how we could take our
5 prototypical building that people recognize and try to blend
6 it into the community.
7 But I'd just like to say this memo that was dated
8 today with the four conditions, I mean, I think we agree on
9 it. We don't mind doing a sign frieze. I know it's not
10 required, but we're willing to do it.
11 And I think Michael has submitted something that
12 we can live with and we'd like to get on with this.
13 SPEAKER: This isn't quite what we did in your
14 office. I'll show you what we did, in my recollection.
15 MS. MICHOW: Do we want to take a five minute
16 recess?
17 SPEAKER: Yeah.
18 MS. MICHOW: Let's take a recess.
19 (A recess was taken.)
20 MS. MICHOW: We're back on the record. It's
21 approximately ten of eight. We were in recess for about ten
22 minutes. And the applicant was meeting with staff to
23 determine whether they could resolve the issue of the sign
24 frieze design.
25 And, Clark, if you want to reiterate what you
43
1 There are a lot of buildings around here built
2 prior to this adoption of this Land Use Code. And what that
3 means isn't that new buildings under the code review like
4 that. The code was done in response to the accumulating of
5 growing inventory of issues like this. That's what the Land
6 Use Code is. It's in response to many of the things that
7 are cited.
8 So, no, there's nothing that says there has to a
9 sign frieze. However, ideally an architect, maybe a local
10 one, I know that there are local architects that would have
11 been able and worked on some of this stuff of examples that
12 I showed you, that would have been able to take this
13 language here and do a building that captures it.
14 So the frieze, the sills, the cornice, there's
15 nothing in here that says that there has to be a sill under
16 the windows. It simply calls for that detailing in the
17 general standards.
18 I guess I read them all before (inaudible).
19 MS. MICHOW: Yeah, they're in this stack.
20 SPEAKER: So, no, there's nothing that says
21 there has to a frieze, however, these seem to be sort of
22 minimal elements that can be again added without
23 fundamentally actually having an architect design a
24 building.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: Can I make a comment?
DFA
1 Now you read those and you look at the building and there's
2 no way that these standards can anticipate how every new
3 development can respect the historic character of every
4 existing resource.
5 3.4.7(b) "The development plan and building
6 design shall protect and enhance the historical and
7 architectural value of any such historic property on or
8 adjacent to the project site. New buildings must be
9 compatible with the historic character of any such historic
10 buildings."
11 Now the applicants asked me as we start to talk
12 about this, what could we possibly do to take that Loveland
13 shopping center design and adapt to this? And in response
14 I've listed those items and I had them listed. That was my
15 best shot.
16 And I reviewed it with our historic preservation
17 planners. They basically agreed. They feel that it's a
18 kind of simplistic response. The top element is
19 (inaudible.)
20 I have a response to a whole bunch of assertions
21 that have been made here. But it isn't relevant -- come
22 look, for example, at this building.
23 We didn't review it. And there's nothing in the
24 code says walk around until you find buildings that have the
25 mechanical equivalent, for instance.
41
1 anything, but we're just concerned about some of these
2 having to do this to be a downtown urban -style building,
3 which I guess I'd have to disagree with. And I think Waffle
4 House disagrees with.
5 If you look downtown, it's not like that. There
6 are some cases that it's done that way and they do have
7 three-dimensional top elements. And we're willing to work a
8 little bit more on that. But --
9 MS. MICHOW: I understand Waffle House's
10 position.
11 Clark, can you point to provisions in the Land
12 Use Code that relate to sign requirements and sign froezes?
13 SPEAKER: No, it's true the friezes aren't
14 required.
15 Let me restate the fact that I never wanted to
16 have the response to the comments consist of me telling them
17 what to stick onto the building in order to address the
18 comments. I strongly encouraged them to have an architect
19 to read these passages.
20 "New construction is designed to respect the
21 historic character of the site and any historic properties
22 in the surrounding neighborhood. This section is intended
23 to protect designated or eligible historic structures,
24 whether on or adjacent to the project site," and so on.
25 I could read on the things that I cited before.
40
1 dimension out and put into -- and Clark can look at that and
2 make sure that he thought that this was acceptable.
3 But this is essentially what we had talked about
4 there. And we can enter it into the record, and you can
5 look at it and Clark can look at it -- that we talked about
6 this afternoon at my office. You know, adding some
7 additional EIFS. Giving a little bit more relief,
8 Creating some more shadow lines, things of that nature.
9 And if we could possibly move forward, if that's
10 fine with Waffle House to do that and leave just basic block
11 in the center here, which basically would be covered.
12 Staff has also talked about a condition that it
13 had to be a ground face block, which is a smoother type of a
14 finished surface.
15 But most of those areas are going to be covered
16 up with signage that will buffer those views to that block.
17 It's not going to really be perceivable from the street and
18 from people walking by that you have a little bit of texture
19 difference in those areas.
20 I mean, we still have on the table that we will
21 continue to work with them and get that small detail, as far
22 as it's considered, and architecture worked out. But to
23 hold us to the fire saying that if you don't have this
24 exactly, then it burns us if we're not downtown.
25 And, again, we're not trying to seek staff or
39
1 Now they may still have a top course of a little
2 bit more masonry. Maybe in this case, we've got just the
3 front that has a little bit of top course. This one right
4 here is probably a lot closer to what we want to do in this
5 area. It's basically leave this -- we could leave that area
6 flat and still have the three-dimensional top. We could
7 still even do something along the bottom with the EIFS
8 that we're proposing and then have the awning that's coming
9 out.
10 Very eclectic downtown. Very diverse in
11 architecture. And nowhere written in the code does it say
12 we have to have a sign frieze. And nowhere in Old Town does
13 it say -- I mean, maybe its ten or fifteen percent of the
14 buildings have it.
15 Now we've tried to work very hard with staff, and
16 we still are working very hard with staff, and we're trying
17 to work out their preference towards the sign frieze.
18 But I guess that's been one of the things that
19 Waffle House is concerned about of having -- that you have
20 to have this particular kind of sign frieze to meet the
21 architectural character for downtown and have an urban style
22 building. It leans more towards staff preference.
23 Now, are we willing to work with them? Yes. We
24 have worked, we've proposed a number of things. We've
25 agreed upon -- and I just did a very quick sketch that I can
PM
1 like this was worked out. So we either have to do it --
2 SPEAKER: Is there any reason that we can't work
3 that out right now and basically resolve, (inaudible).
4 SPEAKER: Yeah, let's finish it.
5 SPEAKER: Maybe we can kind of keep talking about
6 some things.
7 SPEAKER: But it sounds like there are things we
8 can agree upon, and we're trying to keep from beating a dead
9 horse here. If we have a meeting of the minds, the only
10 issue left is the one thing we were just we're talking
11 about. And if we get that resolved, we're done.
12 SPEAKER: Well, some of what I was going to talk
13 about is we'll address that as far as code requirements,
14 staff preferences. I mean, I guess, essentially, we're
15 trying to -- staff has a preference to have a sign frieze.
16 There's nowhere in the code that says we have to have a sign
17 frieze.
18 Now we have to have a top element and that was
19 one of the things that I was getting ready to talk about a
20 little bit was supposedly the sign frieze meets the
21 character of Old Town or downtown areas. I just went and
22 took -- just randomly walked down the street and took
23 different pictures of different buildings and transitions
24 and honestly there's very few places in downtown that really
25 have a sign frieze.
37
1 to this condition simply because I don't think that it's
2 specific enough, Clark, for my purposes to know what was
3 discussed between you and the applicant.
4 SPEAKER: That was kind of where I was getting
5 at.
6 SPEAKER: Because really unless we can -- I don't
7 know exactly. This is unusual. Like I said in the
8 beginning, it's premature. We did this to accommodate the
9 applicants, and I didn't know if we would see any response
10 to the comments.
11 SPEAKER: Well, we did discuss that, yes. We did
12 say we were going to meet your conditions.
13 SPEAKER: But we also said your architect -- I
14 didn't know for sure what we would do. So I had to prepare
15 it based on the plans that we did review and so forth.
16 So the fact that the detail -- well, if we can
17 draw it up tonight and agree on it, and you guys can agree
18 to it, I think that's the only -- otherwise, the hearing is
19 simply still premature. Or else we'll review the building
20 based on that. And if that's a response to my comment, I
21 have to say that I can't support the building.
22 SPEAKER: So with that one condition, you're
23 completely withdrawing your response, your approval?
24 SPEAKER: I don't see any alternative. Again,
25 normally we wouldn't schedule the hearing until something
19V
1 "Provide the clarified sign frieze detail as discussed
2 between staff and the applicant."
3 I think we're generally on the same page. I'm
4 not a hundred percent sure we're a hundred percent on the
5 same page there, but -- so I don't want to agree to a
6 condition that we might not already be agreed on. Do you
7 understand?
8 SPEAKER: I do. And, likewise, we don't want to
9 agree to approve plans that aren't complete in responding to
10 the comments.
11 And it's impossible to tell on the drawings how
12 that band -- unless it's just stuck on top of the building,
13 and we've heard that you think that it's maybe smooth block
14 inside and maybe that (inaudible) but it'.s impossible to
15 tell the way it's just down on there.
16 And we need to -- I think we agreed to something
17 that would -- I don't know if you -- if you guys all talked
18 with each other, but it looked like it would work. There
19 would be no negative impacts as far as building it?
20 SPEAKER: Well, once again, it looked like it,
21 but I'm not sure until my architect reviews it. And --
22 SPEAKER: That's a function of the hearing being
23 a little premature.
24 SPEAKER: I mean, I'm willing to agree with it.
25 MS. MICHOW: Well, I don't know that we can agree
35
1 MR. BARON: Okay, good. That helps me out then.
2 We can certainly agree with that condition a hundred
3 percent.
4 SPEAKER: Great.
5 MS. MICHOW: (Inaudible.) Okay, if we can just
6 take --
7 (The audio tape went to side 2.)
8 MS. MICHOW: And I think at the end of the
9 applicant's presentation, perhaps we can summarize what has
10 been agreed to by staff as conditions and approval since --
11 SPEAKER: I agree. And perhaps we can skip
12 quickly over that thing, and the sills and everything that
13 we've agreed on.
14 SPEAKER: Right. And I think to be honest with
15 you on the conditions, am I in the right place? I think
16 we're towards the end.
17 The only thing that causes me any consternation
18 happens to be No. 3. And I'm not -- and it's the change in
19 the texture of the mason -- no, I'm sorry. I apologize.
20 MS. MICHOW: Are you referring to --
21 SPEAKER: I'm referring to the staff
22 recommendation conditions of them recommending approval.
23 MS. MICHOW: Okay. And that's in a memo, Clark,
24 that you did dated today.
25 SPEAKER: And I'm sorry, it's No. 2 actually.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one on the south side. There is one on the west side. And
we had one on the north side. And there's some possible
issues with the north side that we're negotiating or we've
talked with Clark about as far as that goes.
SPEAKER: And I could speak to some of that.
MS. MICHOW: I'm sorry, could you state your
name?
MR. BARON: Sure. It's Walter Baron. And I'm
with Waffle House. Kind of a difficult way to do it, and in
talking about the notes that the conditions on approval, I
certainly think the signage issue is one that we can address
on the north face that we can go without. It is sort of a
request from that. So it would eliminate that sign frieze
on the north side.
Now one of the things that I kind of want to
discuss in that respect and maybe you can help me out,
because I know that the sign plans are to be done on a
different date and to be quite frank with you, we haven't
decided exactly what we want to do, but I believe there
is -- we're eliminating our one potential position for a
sign and especially to gain visibility coming south on
College, I think the code reads that if we have a monument
sign, we're not allowed a sign facing the street.
SPEAKER: Well, there's simply a maximum square
footage of 90 square feet.
33
1 the style that Waffle House has and has always employed and
2 people have come to know that hey, that's Waffle House.
3 That's their trademark signature type thing there.
4 We have gone ahead and taken the black EIFS
5 out. Clark was real thrilled with that. And so we're
6 looking at going back to just using the EIFS to create
7 some three-dimensional elements and definition there of a
8 sign frieze area and probably keeping the original block
9 background in there.
10
Now there's
negotiations, I
guess, going back and
11
forth on what type of
block that would
be. At this point in
12
time, we are proposing
that this be a
CMU block building
13
much like the building
that is just to
the south that's just
14
across the street from
us, and several
of them that are just
15 across the street.
16 But using a split face and using colors to define
17 things, this more natural color right here that's being
18 defined here, we're also proposing to be a split face block
19 to give it more texture. It gives it more shade, shadow
20 (inaudible) the block kind of moves out and has some
21 different undulations to it and kind of creates more of a
22 unique interest to the building other than just being sheer
23 black.
24 MS. MICHOW: How many sign friezes do you have?
25 SPEAKER: We have three sign friezes. There's
32
1 And that was one thing here that would show a
2 little
bit of scale
of what size of this building, the
3 awning
height, tree
size with that pedestrian walking right
4 by the
building.
5 The building is a good size height.
6 Proportionately it does correspond with many of the
7 buildings in Old Town as far as their height goes also and
8 for a single story building. And also then still using the
9 awnings you kind of try and bring this wall, which is nearly
10 three times as tall as the average person, start bringing a
11 little bit more human scale now down to this urban area that
12 we have pretty good concreted plaza -type area in front and
13 all the way through this building here.
14 And we feel, again, that this is really gone much
15 more of an urban and not have some images of downtown
16 buildings, whereas there's an eclectic style of downtown.
17 And back to the sign frieze, we've come in and
18 we've tried to introduce with a (inaudible) product, which
19 ties in a lot at the top, also just 3-D visualwise with the
20
sill,
a defining and sign frieze type area. Whereas before
21
it was
basically just straight
block in introducing that.
22
We originally after
we met with Clark earlier
23
today,
black EIFS in that area
than with the typical
24
Waffle
House trademark letters
would be yellow letters. So
25 we used black background with the yellow lettering, which is
31
1 the corner, of bringing in that pylon so it kind of ties in
2 and match visibly with what's happening on the south side of
3 the building. And that also kind of breaks up that linear
4 wall by changing planes and conserving ribs or pylasters
5 which is required in the project.
6 Another element that we had talked with Clark
7 about that he kind of had on his idea or wish list that he'd
8 like to see was a sign frieze. And as he was saying, we
9 added in some sign friezes here on the south side of the
10 building, here on the west and on the north.
11 A little harder to see it here on the west. This
12 is actual to scale the existing tree out there that would
13 obscure and buffer a lot of the building out there. The
14 tree's approximately about 40 feet tall and that's
15 (inaudible) with this viewwise.
16 That's the existing tree out of Cluck-U's about
17 here. And that's about a 20-foot building. And it comes to
18 approximately the middle of the tree a good 35- 40-foot
19 tall. And it does a pretty good job of buffering views from
20 the west, which was a concern about also of what's happening
21 with that building.
22 And as you can see, it's going to really enhance
23 just really the base coarse glass a little bit of the awning
24 here for the pedestrian urban kind of feel that they have
25 going.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
elevations, the door was defined only by an awning at this
point. We've come back and looked at some different
elements and we've gone to the peak element here which
is 20-foot, which meets the definition of zoning and
the definition of building height and the Land Use Code.
And part of that element was similarly derived.
Again we talked about historic buildings. To compliment
them isn't necessarily to copy them, but to pull off little
bits and pieces of details and the design ideas that they
have had to try to incorporate it into the building.
And certain things you can see pointed out
before. The Dara House uses the peaked roof and has kind of
the columns, the pylons that come down, sticks out and
creates more proportions (inaudible) residents.
And we've kind of taken that similar element in
defining the door. Also allowing the awning, kind of
creating the peak slightly different but still pulling in
some of that architectural detail from the buildings
next -door and allowing that to kind of jut out.
And on the back side instead of just regular
block, it would be a siding type element on that. Kind of
tie some of that back into the house, the Dara House next
door.
And also as I was pointing out along the north
wall, also coming back in. And there's some glass here at
29
1 street frontage of doing a (inaudible) concrete sill to
2 define the lower half of the windows. If you look actually
3 at how the striping comes along, we have a couple of stripes
4 that would be of different color coming along. And we're
5 using -- the striping also define at the lintel to the
6 window also is a different coloration, which has been done
7
on various different buildings that
have just been built
8
recently
in the last few months, and
that has been something
9
allowable. As well as the awnings here
really do kind of
10
also set
and define the top of those
windows.
11
Another thing that we've
also done is before, if
12
you look
on here, it's all basically
store front aluminized
13
windows,
and we've come back and we've
broken those windows
14
up.
On
the
corners in the center basically
have two
panes
15
of
glass
and
go to (inaudible) and then two
panes of
glass
16
and
the
same
things, trying to define those
windows
further
17 for the city. They were concerned about just having large
18 store front windows (inaudible) and look at and give an
19 example of actually large store front windows occur up and
20 down Old Town in the downtown area are prevalent.
21 And another item that we did add also is this
22 cornice treatment that is widely along the grid to address
23 the top element -type piece. It's a 8-inch by 4-inch
24 (inaudible) about 4 inches from the block (inaudible).
25 Also as Clark had pointed out, that the original
M."
1 months.
2 You can see the new equipment as well as old
3 equipment as well as from the towers from behind, obviously
4 very easily seen from that area that there's been no
5 screening necessary. Although we have gone into staff in
a
6 talking today and said that if that is something that we
7 need to do, and they feel incredibly strong about doing
8 that, that we would provide a metal screen that would go on
9 top of each of the mechanical units in there. The screen
10 would be viewed from essentially from the top that has a
11 view. Our building is one office out of the Dara House,
12 possibly another one.
13 We felt like we've worked with staff pretty well
14 on that, and we've committed to do some things of that
15 nature and try and comply as best as we can with it, even
16 though there would be other examples that have very recently
17 happened (inaudible.)
18 As Clark was saying, and you can kind of see from
19 sketches and some of the things that the Waffle House
20 architect in Alabama has worked on, we have come back
21 through here and defined a base course, which we have
22 before, but we've enhanced it, made it larger and set it off
23 by different color. And at this point in time it's proposed
24 with base block.
25 Under the window sills along here and along the
27
1 And essentially the building slopes from the
2 front, or the west side in this case, back to the back. And
3 there is a slight dash line that comes through here.
4 And on this one we're actually showing where the
5 AC units and the mechanical equipment would be. That
6 they're -- essentially even if you were on this horizontal
7 view here, that you essentially won't see them. And from
8 the street there would be no way that you would be able to
9 see them.
10 It was brought up by staff what about from the
11 Dara House window, and (inaudible) we've gone out and
12 measured essentially right here to this lower sill, and is a
13 few inches actually lower than where our top of our walls
14 would be. So possibly somebody sitting there, depending on
15 the mechanical location, if it's on the far south of the
16 building, there's a possibility that they may see a side.
17
As I pointed out
there are a number of
other
18
buildings around town that
are obviously continue
to be
19
gone. This building right
here, this is from the
sidewalk.
20
All the city's equipment is
completely exposed.
21
The Northern Hotel,
which just underwent
a big
22
renovation, you can see all
their equipment from
the top.
23 This building right here right behind Perkins,
24 again you can see basically from this last lot right here
25 there's a new addition that they put on the last few
26
1 part staff is -- will pretty well work out of those issues.
2 There's a few little engineering things here and there that
3 pretty easily are clarifiable at the final compliance, put a
4 little more detail on things. But as Clark pointed out,
5 this is essentially an architectural issue and trying to
6 bring that around.
7 I think he had shown the last set (inaudible) of
8 your view. This is the first, I guess, elevations that we
9 turned in.
10 This is very similar to the level in the Waffle
11 House (inaudible) a little bit of color block here. Some
12 stripes, they kind of move through with the masonry straight
13 up with the Waffle House signature lettering on there.
14 That's the trademark that they use.
15 And we've gone through some obliteration. We've
16 worked with Clark as closely as possible to do different --
17 trying to get some of his thoughts from interpreting what
18 the code says and also working with the staff on what they
19 feel it should look like also.
20 So at this point in time, this is essentially our
21 different views. I'll start with at the bottom.
22 Pretty simply, this is the view back here. If
23 you notice even from the additional view, we had no wall
24 here. This is the existing roof line now. These are the
25 parapet walls that stick up.
PM
1 the block wall. As well as we're going to go ahead and try
2 and buffer some of this CMU block wall back in this service
3 area that's located back here which is the trash enclosure
4 and back door of the restaurant.
5 And we actually discussed with Clark today, we've
6 had some smaller shrubs through here. We're going to look
7 at the option of maybe looking at some Boston Ivy, something
8 of that nature, that would also climb that wall and also
9 start to give a little bit of more of a buffering view of
10 what that facade would look like.
11 And this is a little long. We're going to have
12 some pylons (inaudible) coming through the entry columns
13 that we have on this side. We'll break this wall up with
14 those that (inaudible).
15 So on the top we have kind of a wringer plate on
16 that (inaudible) with existing spruces. Where the Dara
17 House is located, it has existing trees here that also kind
18 of block and buffers from the windows along here and kind of
19 brings the house down and also (inaudible) to the waffle
20 House building.
21 And so a lot of this is very similar. We have
22 the colored concrete, the parking. An alley access off the
23 back side here. Trash enclosure would be opposite that
24 (inaudible) out here.
25 The other thing that it seems like for the most
24
1 Essentially about 18 parking spaces through here,
2 plus along the edges. Service area back here.
3 We'll tear down the existing CMU block, trash
4 enclosure, put up another, essentially, trash enclosure that
5 would come back and match the architecture as far as color,
6 material, things of that nature in there to tie those things
7 together.
8 Again, one thing we discussed, the cooler location
9 which is this piece right here that sits into the back. We
10 talked about the views from the Dara House. And we still
11 feel that this spruce tree, and I can show you basically the
12 branches hang down. The top of this wall would block any
13 kind of real views here as well as the height of this wall.
14 And that's basically -- I guess I'll point out
15 we've got a couple of existing trees out here in the front
16 of the building as well as this one.
17 The existing site basically has zero landscape
18 other than a little bit of preserved area about half the
19 size around this existing tree. And we're going to enlarge
20 that. Give the tree a little bit more breathing -room in
21 there also.
22 And as well as we'll add landscape kind of
23 through here along this buffer that will set back
24 (inaudible) five feet from the existing wall. We'll get
25 some climbing material in there to buffer that scene with
23
1 that meets the CDOT standards.
2 Also one of the things that we're adding in here
3 is also the
highlight,
this existing walk
right through
4 here. The
cross, where
we have potential
pedestrian and
5 vehicular/pedestrian basically crossing the entry drive, a
6 enhanced kind of a crosswalk in a sense to kind of
7 (inaudible) but vehicular and pedestrians now they're kind
8 of entering in from right off the sidewalk and they're
9 crossing, making this available more to the (inaudible)
10 vehicles turning in and vehicles coming out. There would be
11 a colored concrete with some diamond patterns (inaudible).
12 And the color of concrete would go ahead and match what we
13 have here as far as the material of the building.
14 And we also have an area right here that connects
15 with the existing walk right through here that would be set
16 up the same way kind of as another one of those subtle
17 signals in an urban environment to would allow people to --
18 again, that there's a transition there. They can take that
19 walk up to the front door to this connecting walk which is
20 one of the requirements that (inaudible) just to have a
21 connecting walk up the street.
22
And, again, we
repeat that
element here right at
23
the entry and we also have
a ramp here
that would pick up
24
the same (inaudible) so we
would have
some tie-ins with the
25 building down to the ground here.
22
1 there, take the building over here and the building that's
2 directly across the street, this one here that faces it,
3 that's essentially set in that same orientation within the
4 same block and neighborhood.
5 And coming through here, and this is actually
6 where the Cluck-U Chicken is sitting next to the drive and
7 goes to the rear parking lot of the Dara House.
8 This is the rooftop line of the Dara House. They
9 have a large spruce that really buffers a lot of views in
10 the back of our building as well as they have an existing
11 CMU block wall that's about four foot tall painted, 50s 60s
12 look. You can kind of see it. This runs along right
13 through here (inaudible) over here at some point in time
14 (inaudible).
15 MS. MICHOW: That's on the Dara?
16 SPEAKER: That's on the Dara House they have
17 looks (inaudible) with X block across the top (inaudible).
18 But essentially it's just regular CMU, really painted to
19 match the building that's right here kind of a light yellow
20 color.
21 We have our main entrance in here. Parking lot
22 remains about the same as the setup that's in there.
23 Obviously to do some improvements with new asphalt, curb and
24 gutter. Also some new concrete work out here in the
25 right-of-way to open up some of the 20-foot radiuses on here
21
1 This is actually a view right here out of that
2 second floor window. They essentially just looked at swamp
3 coolers, (inaudible) things of that nature out the window
4 there. And essentially their view is cut off from any other
5 views other than that in that area.
6 And again this is another view out that window.
7 You can see across the parking lot. The large elm tree out
8 here (inaudible) back side there from the second floor
9 window.
10 And (inaudible).
11 And, again, this is a view that (inaudible)
12 talked about. This is heading south. Awnings bringing
13 these larger buildings over down to a pedestrian scale.
14 Store front windows. CMU block exposed at this point in
15 time. They have a little bit of surface against some rock
16 but that's about it (inaudible) and a little stucco across
17 the top.
18 I'll just talk real quickly (inaudible) of the
19 orientation.
20 This site, this is the large building that we
21 have right here, existing CMU block wall that sits right on
22 the south property line. We have a very large elm tree here
23 which (inaudible).
24 So we looked at our addition here. We felt that
25 also to preserve that natural resource and keep the tree
20
1 Just directing you to just right down here
2 again. This is from the alley coming back in. It gives you
3 about view of the south lot line that is basically
4 essentially standard, standard view, that's painted
5 (inaudible).
6 They kick the front up here to about 20 foot and
7 dropped this back two-thirds of the building down to about
8 14 feet (inaudible).
9 Again this is we show a picture of the Dara
10 House. Columns pylons type (inaudible).
11 This is one of the areas on the side that
12 apparently it's a vacant office at this point in time. That
13 would have a view. Massage therapist. And this upper
14 corner right here is future windows (inaudible).
15 Again, this is a view looking down the sidewalk
16 towards (inaudible) and Park Avenue. A similar type view.
17 One thing I wanted to point out in here, as the neighborhood
18 works into this area at Laurel Street, the buildings are set
19 right on the right-of-way line, as they progress north, the
20 buildings start (inaudible) is a transition to the buildings
21 that are located at the northern corner on both sides is the
22 furthest buildings set back and that actually happens in the
23 next building. And (inaudible) starts pulling away from the
24 proper line a couple of feet and starts making that
25 transition a step -back.
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You've got a little bit of treatment here. A
little bit of cornice top treatment and they have worked the
signage in that flat area.
And this is College right here. (Inaudible.)
This is the view to the north. That looking a little bit --
again (inaudible) on that and his detail on that as well as
(inaudible) of that nature that we can get into a little bit
further (inaudible).
We'll look at that a little bit in detail.
Now let's see if I can get,these kind of
(inaudible).
Again, this is just some further views. This is
the southwest corner walking along the sidewalk. The view
into the site with the existing Cluck-U Chicken with the
A -frame building, as you can see, would utterly obliterate
the views of the Dara House doesn't allow any view of that
resource from this direction.
The building we're proposing would actually start
allowing views to that building as you're moving down
College, and views from the second floor right now. I can
show some pictures of their views basically from the roof
(inaudible).
So they're actually pretty open. And (inaudible)
just use that as professional offices not as a residential
offices (inaudible).
HMO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the street and Mulberry here.
We've got a building here with the drive.
Actually in the exact same orientation of the Waffle House
building is located a larger building but responding to that
narrow deep lot that Old Town doesn't have. And also kind
of helping set some of that character that some of the
buildings are set in this fashion.
And around on this other side this is where 90
percent of all the entrances to the offices, professional
offices, retail outlets, things of that nature, where those
first and second floor are located. And they've had a
connecting walk that comes back out to the street
(inaudible).
A couple other buildings. Right across from
Perkins also we have the clock towers here. This is a
linear view looking this direction. Again the building in
our similar orientation.
We also have this building here. Again, both of
these buildings have small narrow front and they're very
linear in nature (inaudible).
So as far as our site planning and justification
(inaudible) that would be adequate.
And just looking at some of the other character
and some of the others, this is just one example building
under 20 foot tall about the same 60 foot height.
Dori
1 This area right here is where the site is down
2 here. And this is up here at the south (inaudible). We
3 have Mulberry Street right here, Safeway, Garts
4 Sports. (Inaudible.) And the office directly here in this
5 building. (Inaudible.)
6 Also Olive Street runs approximately right here.
7 And the character that Mark was talking about, midtown,
8 downtown, at the plan of the designer I kind of see this
9 line here changes reasonably drastically, I would say, from
10 what is midtown and what is truly downtown. And I'll just
11 kind of define that a little bit further.
12 Midtown is really this kind of strip across from
13 CSU. You've got a road, Prospect, up to this point. Where
14 there's a interruption here and their large parking lot.
15 This is the Perkins business street and entering their
16 parking lot at this point here, then it comes down.
17 We have kind of a building here that sits back
18 here on the corner that is made of blocks split -face and
19 brown block.
20 Again actually from about right here over was
21 actually just completed construction just within the last
22 few months. And we'll go back to that in a minute.
23 Again, this is almost directly across the street,
24 south parking lot opening up between the buildings onto
25 College Avenue. The drive. This building is just across
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the building, have an architect just to design the
building to meet these characteristics. However, to the
degree they've done that, like I say, we're pretty well
satisfied.
Regarding the peaked roof portion that has a
sloped part, I sent this. This is from another recent sort
of presubmittal project that we looked at. Again, we see
the base, the brick, some three dimensional elements and
details, cornice and banding. And also the peaked element
has an actual proof with actual eaves and actual brackets.
And that's a more traditional style that we relate to the
house next door and so forth there. I haven't quite drawn
it this way, but these are some of the ideas.
The point of these is to convey the ideas and
stimulate the discussion of how it's needed. The rest of the
slides are the plans and a better view of the plan, if we
want to look at the plans, on the boards that the applicants
brought. So that's it for the presentation.
MS. MICHOW: Why don't we turn to the applicant
(inaudible).
SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Michael --
(Inaudible.)
Clark has kind of gone over essentially the
project. I was just going to start out with kind of
the aerial view of the area that we're at.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking about, I answered in words. And I also did these
sketches in about ten minutes one day a couple of months
ago. But I just -- this shows the idea of the sign frieze,
possibly the architectural lighting kind of traditional in
style.
At the time I was calling for it to meet the
20-foot minimum height by having a 20-foot -- a taller
facade facing the, street. That's a whole subject that
we're now -- we now see that our minimum height does not
describe that or call for that.
You see the top elements of that and (inaudible)
and the base (inaudible) and so forth. So that's what those
ideas were.
I also provided examples of what I mean by the
split -faced block overface and then a sill under the
windows and the brick, you know, a change in material for
brick above the sill.
This building is full two-story with a need
(inaudible) there's a cornice type of element, that precast
element at about the same height as the building in question
that we're talking about. So that was provided just as an
example.
And what could possibly be done to meet this?
All along I encouraged the applicants to use an architect
and to rather than have me tell them exactly what to stick
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the block and then block out to the side. There is no
(inaudible).
This is the design we were reviewing. This would
be weighed in that context of what we just looked at.
This is essentially the design that was first
submitted.
Then the peak feature that you see on the
elevations there, that was added specifically in response to
(inaudible) previously regarding the minimum height on the
street.
So except for that peak feature, this is
essentially what we were presented and this is what we
thought was, you know, just simply not being tailored to its
local contents.
Better suited for this type of application for
this type of application (inaudible). This is the -- what
serves as the front really. This is where the doorway is
(inaudible).
Another doorway and moved above facing the
street.
And this is the north side that would be adjacent
to the Dara House.
The subjects that I listed in response to the
applicant's asking what kinds of things could we do to make
the building fit the context better to do what you're
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(inaudible). So we are satisfied with that one.
And that's just simply there's a question
(inaudible).
Those were the issues. And, again, to summarize,
all the concluded (inaudible) with the respondent.
Yeah. To get everyone on the same page, we've
got a few photographs. Primarily just photographs of the
site and the context.
Yeah, here's the first one showing the property
in question. That's the old Cluck-U Chicken restaurant with
its parking lot.
This is the Dara House next door to the north
with its sign and front yard. You see the property there.
There's the Dara House. Eligible for national, state and
local designation as a historical landmark.
Next door to the south is just to give the flavor
of the streetscape, commercial buildings and the sidewalk.
Same thing. Detailed view of that.
And a few basic downtown -type street front.
Across the block in the same block but on the
other side of College, again, you know, a pretty traditional
character despite style; it varied. Significant detailing.
Windows, doorways. Relatively refined materials.
There is no concrete block facing the street.
Some of these buildings are made of block and have veneers
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(inaudible) -- drawings we looked at today, it wasn't
possible to tell how it would fit in the course unless it
was just stuck right on. It didn't quite match and so
forth. And we figured out that the applicants after
consulting myself this afternoon -- (inaudible) -- to get
that detail.
Those standards are in the resources section of
the Land Use Code. Also the Mixed Use Commercial Building
Section. One standard calls for new development to use in
architectural design that's complimentary to the established
architectural character. That's 3.5.1B. 3.5.1B1 calls for
the building design to contribute to the uniqueness of the
zone district with early design characteristics on the
building.
Specifically, materials and detailed elements
need to be designed specifically and tailored to the site
and its contents.
Those -- well, there's another. 3.5.1 I3 and 6
called for equipment and mechanical and (inaudible)
equipment to be screened, including screen from above from
adjacent buildings.
And then I'm assured also today plans have not
ever shown that. And apparently it's all concealed behind
the parapet from below and from the straight -on view such as
(inaudible) and will be incorporated into screenings
11
1 differentiate the base from the rest of the building. And
2 to introduce smaller and more traditional module than the
3 concrete block.
4 We asked the prominent architectural window trim
5 painted in color. We asked for some kind of frieze panel
6 above the windows and above the awning where there's a part
7 that's essentially flat. A typical situation occupying
8 downtown buildings. There was no detail beyond that that's
9 been completely taken care of.
10 In all cases the plans -- the building design
11 that we saw today addresses all of those things except for
12 the brick. And to the extent that it's not clear on the
13 plans, particularly regarding the sort of frieze panel
14 detail above the awning, was not clear on the plan that you
15 saw there.
16 I don't know if you've had added it. Can I ask
17 the applicants did you have the detail we agreed on, on any
18 drawings?
19 SPEAKER: We have not.
20 SPEAKER: Okay. That was one that the frieze
21 panel is a pretty significant part of the building and they
22 added something above the awning to do this. And it wasn't
23 clear just exactly how it was working. (Inaudible.) And so
24 we talked quite a bit about that being more integrated into
25 the masonry courses rather than something that appeared --
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Had the plans not been clear on the detailing
around windows, those are things that have been addressed in
plans that we saw today. There is a top element pattern.
It's a top band that's functioned. (Inaudible.) Detailing
the windows as clarified with masonry as a divider between
sets of windows. Those are some of the things that again we
feel have helped to address this.
The building needs to -- building design needs to
be found to protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of the adjacent historic property. The
building needs to be in compliance with (inaudible) includes
(inaudible) the character of the historic structure.
As I mentioned a flat and uniform concrete block
facade, we talked about.
And in response to applicant's questions and
discussions with the applicant, we have provided
suggestions. (Inaudible.)
You know, they had asked what do we have to do to
make this building comply? In response to that we suggested
an overhanging three-dimensional cornice where a flat roof
fused. And overhanging eaves with trim, fascia, possibly
brackets and so forth. (Inaudible.) We asked for prominent
three-dimensional windows such as with precast concrete
products that would go well with the concrete block. We
asked for brick rather than block above the sills to
0
1 parking
lot, however,
our position is that we've
agreed that
2 this is
acceptable given the existing function
of the site
3 with its
parking lot.
And, in fact, there is
a lot straight
4 to the entrance, however,
this exception
we believe may
5 clearly design the front
of the building
along the street
6 edge even more important,
or particularly
important, given
7 that it doesn't have the
normal entrance
facing the
8
sidewalk, which is typical
of the district and it's a pretty
9
fundamental urban
design use
originally.
10
So we're
beyond
asking the applicants to turn the
11
building or put a
door on
it. But that's a consideration in
12
everything else that
we've
talked about. Again, pointing
13
to the uniqueness
of this
district, the pedestrian
14 orientation so on and so forth.
15 Specific standards, 3.4.7 A2, compatibility with
16 historic resources, said that we need to find that the
17 building adequately meets -- that the building respects the
18 historic character of the adjacent building and does not
19 adversely affect the integrity of the resource.
20 We find that that standard has not been met,
21 although, again, it's been a relatively uniform design of a
22 split -face concrete block around the top with some stripes
23 of a different color but without much three dimensional
24 projection or recessed details such as sills, harnesses and
25 so forth.
1 mixed use, encouraged uniquely distinct identifiable places,
2 architectural character of individual buildings to be
3 coordinated, contribute to a coherent identity and sense of
4 place. Building massing should relate to nearby buildings
5 in the urban context.
6 This is a zoned district specifically written for
7 downtown or downtown -like situations. In this case it's got
8 a pretty clear identity. We want to acknowledge there's
9 plenty of latitude to accommodate the large differences
10 between the historical house next door and this clearly
11 modern commercial building without directly imitating the
12 historic style. That's not the point, however, within that
13 broad latitude both commercial buildings need to be more in
14 character with the contents.
15 The overall urban context on this block both
16 sides of the college includes a truly eclectic mix of
17 styles. And styles is never the point in our reviews,
18 however, this property with the Cluck-U property as a
19 striking exception, there is also a consistent urban
20 character and identity. All the other midtown buildings
21 face the street directly, that is, building faces and
22 landscape yards unless the buildings are right on the
23 sidewalk. So the majority of frontage of every property is
24 that rather than parking lots.
25 The proposed building's an exception, face the
7
1 To the extent the questions remain on a number of
2 engineering details regarding the grading, utility, paving
3 and the plan sheets themselves, staff agrees that all those
4 questions can be addressed in final compliance plans if this
5 PDP, this project development plan is approved tonight.
6 Again, the issue is whether or not compliance
7 have involved the building design. Generally from the
8 beginning staff has contended that the architecture is
9 essentially a suburban strip mall pad design and that it
10 needs to be tailored more to this Fort Collins community
11 commercial district with more prominent detailed
12 characteristics, to complement the historic character of the
13 Tara House and then adding those detailed characteristics to
14 compliment the house next door also would serve to meet the
15 general standards in the Land Use Code for mixed use of
16 commercial buildings with different considerations, would
17 work very well to shape a building consistent with the CC
18 building descriptions.
19 I mentioned the CC zone district in the
20 conference plan. And the background of that you will note
21 briefly here. It's for mixed use town centers. And the
22 language is distinctly opposed to a suburban shopping center
23 type development.
24 It's described in a term such as physical
25 environment to provide high quality urban life with vertical
R.
1 matter I need to ask about is whether any notices were
2 required and if they've been complied with.
3 SPEAKER: Yes, there is required notice of this
4 meeting and that has been done.
5 MS. MICHOW: Okay, publication --
6 SPEAKER: It's publication and a mailing. And if
7 posting is required, that it's been done.
8 MS. MICHOW: I'm asking. I'm not sure if it has
9 been or not.
10 SPEAKER: Yeah. The front staff handled that.
11 And if it's required, I'm sure that it's been done. And I
12 know we sent the mailer and did the required publications.
13 MS. MICHOW: Okay. Do you want to go through and
14 just outline what concerns you had and how the applicant is
15 addressing those to staff's satisfaction.
16 SPEAKER: Okay. The planning issues in our
17 review were limited to a few particular sections of the Land
18 Use Code because this application involved the small
19 existing lot within a complete existing street network in an
20 area characterized in general by pedestrian access, parking
21 lot layouts, building orientation, which is consistent with
22 the approach of the Land Use Code.
23 Staff has found that the basic layout of the
24 development plan complies with the standards for basic site
25 design considerations.
5
1 so forth.
But, again, you know, we're
accommodating the
2 special case of this schedule. And
because we felt like
3 there was
no harm in doing so, that
it would be reasonable
4 to do so, went ahead and scheduled the hearing.
5 And so today we had an informal meeting with the
6 applicants, and we are satisfied that with some conditions
7 that we need to talk about at this hearing, and, frankly,
8 I'm not even exactly sure how that fits in with the normal
9 procedure, to discuss the last few conditions.
10 But they substantially have responded to the
11 comments on which staff was basing a recommendation of
12 denial on. Four conditions, which I believe are minor,
13 staff is now prepared to list off the standards that we felt
14 were not being complied with and support the project.
15 So if you have a staff report recommending denial
16 based on the plans we had when we scheduled the hearing,
17 there is some new information as of today that I have
18 available that I can give to you that states that all the
19 architectural criteria that is listed in the staff report we
20 feel have adequately met those conditions. That if they
21 agree to that, they would support the project.
22 MS. MICHOW: And that reminds me, too, why
23 don't we enter into the record the staff report and anything
24 that's here tonight in terms of evidence. That will all be
25 made a part of the record for the hearing. And one other
4
1 SPEAKER: This is a request to redevelop a
2 Cluck-U fast food chicken house to a waffle house, including
3 demolition of the existing building and construction of a
4 new building.
5 The property is an existing .28 acre lot on the
6 east side of College Avenue between Myrtle and Laurel
7 streets, founded by the historic Dara House next door to the
8 north and Outpost Sun Store retail shop next door to the
9 south with an alley to the east, zoned CC, community
10 commercial district.-
11 Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with
12 the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. And the
13 only significant outstanding issue from our review is the
14 architectural design of the proposed building.
15 Staff is recommending denial of the project based
16 on that review.
17
There's one unusual
factor
about this hearing
18
which relates to the procedure
we just
talked about. That
19
is that we scheduled a hearing
at this
time because there is
20
a real particular deadline
on the applicant's
side with the
21
contracts and so forth, so
we scheduled the
hearing based on
22
the last submittal of plans
and those plans
generated a
23 significant number of comments from the city.
24
And
ordinarily we
would
schedule
this
hearing
25
after all those
comments had
been
addressed
and
resolved and
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm going to ask that you state your name and
spell your last name for the record. And if you could just
tell me whether you're for the applicant or a neighbor or
what your relationship to the project is, that would be
helpful as well.
After the hearing, I'm going to be issuing
written findings and conclusions. And I will be doing that
within ten days of tonight's hearing.
Do we have a deadline closer to that? Did the
applicant request a decision sooner?
SPEAKER: There was something in September.
There was something about a September time frame.
SPEAKER: We'd love to give them within -- we'd
love to give them about 30, but that's cutting it kind of
close.
SPEAKER: It gives you a weekend.
SPEAKER: I think if we could get them by the
Friday of that week, that would be sufficient.
MS. MICHOW: Okay.
SPEAKER: If possible.
MS. MICHOW: If possible, I'll try.
With that, does anyone have any questions with
respect to the procedure for tonight's hearing?
Okay. I will open it up for the presentation by
plaintiff's staff. Who'd like to start?
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 17-02
WAFFLE HOUSE PROJECT
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Administrative Hearing Officer: Linda Michow
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02
September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing
Page 5
A. The land use, standard restaurant, is permitted in the Community Commercial zone
district as an Administrative Review.
B. The P.D.P. complies with applicable General Development Standards with the
exception of 3.4.7(A)(2); 3.5.1 (B); and 3.5.3(D)(1). An outstanding question
remains regarding compliance with 3.5.1 (I)(3) and (6).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the Waffle House, 616 College Ave. PDP.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 — Contextual Site Plan
Attachment 2 — Site Plan
Attachment 3 — Landscape Plan
Attachment 4 — Site Lighting Plan
Attachments 5 & 6 — Building Elevations
Attachment 7 — Photos of Adjacent Historic Building
Attachments 8&9 — Photos of Context
Attachment 10, 11, &12 — Graphics Showing Detail Elements Discussed
n
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02
September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing
Page 4
Attachments 7,8, and 9 show the context. Attachments 10, 11, and 12 show the ideas for
detailing and characteristics that have been discussed in response to questions from the developer.
3.5.1 (B) — The new development does not use an architectural design that is complementary to
the established architectural character, as explained above.
3.5.3(D)(1) — The building design does not contribute to the uniqueness of the CC district with
urban design characteristics that the standards require. Materials and elements are not adequately
tailored specifically to the site and its CC District context.
3.5.1 (1)(3) and (6) — The applicant has not responded to specific questions about the location of
rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment and the need to screen such equipment in compliance
with these code sections. Depending on the answer, which must be determined at the hearing due
to the unusual scheduling, there mayor may not be an issue. Plans and elevations do not show
any rooftop mechanical equipment. Is it all contained within the structure? It needs to be, so that
it is not seen from above (upper floors of existing or future buildings in the area) or from the
ground. Any vents, conduit, meters, etc. that protrude from the architecture must be painted to
match.
4.14(E)(2) d - The 20-foot minimum height standard is to define the street as a space - as a wall
defines a room as a space - and to add architectural interest consistent with the zone'district. As
discussed, it is not to add small peak elements onto otherwise low buildings.
The building technically meets the minimum 20-foot height standard. The wording allows for a
low -slung building to meet the minimum height if a narrow point is added anywhere on the
building. Therefore, staff is not requesting revisions based on the height standard. However,
additional height along the street may be needed to provide room for the design revisions noted in
the previous text.
2. Compliance with the C-C Zone District in Article 4:
The land use, standard restaurant, is.permitted in`the C-C zone district subject to Administrative
Review. The C-C district contains only one applicable standard, 4.14(E)(2)(b), requiring a 20-
foot minimum building height, and the proposed building complies, based on a narrow technical
interpretation of the standard.
3. Finding of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave., P.D.P., Staff makes the
following findings of fact:
---
-
w
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02
September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing
Page 3
The overall urban context on this block face and the facing block (across College Ave.) includes a
truly eclectic mix of styles. However, with this property (as presently developed) the striking
exception, this block of College Avenue has a consistent urban character and identity commonly
known as Midtown.
All other Midtown buildings face the street directly. Buildings and landscaped yards, rather than
parking lots, occupy the majority or entirety of each property. The proposed building is an
exception, and faces its parking lot. Staffs position has agreed that this could be acceptable given
the existing function of the site with its existing parking lot, however, this makes the urban design
of the building along the street edge more important, i.e., it needs to be designed as a "front',
with details that contribute to the uniqueness and pedestrian orientation of the district. .
Comments on Specific Standards.
3.4.7(A)(2) - The building design does not adequately respect the historic character of the
adjacent building, and adversely affects the integrity of the resource, with form and detailing
typical of a suburban shopping center.
3.4.7(B) - The building design does not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value
of any such historic property, and is not compatible with the historic character.
3.4.7(E)(2) - The building is not in character with the existing historic structure.
The flat, uniform concrete block fagade from bottom to top does not comply with the standard.
The developer has asked Staff to suggest what detail elements would need to be added. Staffs
suggestions have included the following:
- an overhanging, 3-dimensional cornice where a flat roof is used; and overhanging eaves
with trim, fascia, brackets, where a sloped roof is used.
- prominent, 3-dimensional sills under windows. Precast concrete products would work well
for sills and cornices.
brick rather than block above the sill to differentiate the base and introduce a smaller, more
traditional module.
prominent architectural window trim, painted or colored.
some kind of frieze panel, where signage could go, defined by detailing in the masonry and
possibly with appropriate architectural lighting.
ending the awning at the north edge of the building, to emphasize the major difference and
transition between the north and south sides of the building. In addition, it projects past the
property line.
Hardiplank siding was added onto the back of the peak feature relate to the clapboard siding on
the Darrah House. Staff has suggested that this does not accomplish that intended purpose, so it
should not be included merely for the sake of response to comments.
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02
September 25, 2002 Administrative Hearing
Page 2
The applicant contends that the building complies with the standards.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Compliance with General Development Standards in Article 3:
Planning issues are limited to a few particular sections of the Land Use Code (LUC), because this
application involves a small existing developed lot, within a complete street network, in an area
characterized by building orientation, pedestrian access, and parking lot layouts consistent with
the approach of the Land Use Code. The basic layout of the development complies with
standards for these basic site design considerations.
Questions remain on a number of engineering details (e.g. grading, utilities, paving, and plan
sheets themselves). However, all such questions can be addressed in Final Compliance plans if
this PDP is approved.
The non-compliance issues involve the building design.
General Comments. The architecture is essentially a suburban, strip mall pad design. Staff
contends that it should be more tailored to this Fort Collins Community Commercial district, with
more prominent detail characteristic's to complement the historic character of the adjacent Darrah
House. This would then serve to meet general standards for Mixed Use and Commercial
Buildings as well. These different considerations would work well together to shape a building
design consistent with the CC zone district.
The CC zone district is for mixed -use town centers, as distinctly opposed to suburban shopping
center -type development. Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan language on CC districts includes:
"The physical environment will provide a high quality urban life ... with vertical mixed use
encouraged... uniquely distinct, identifiable places... architectural character of individual buildings
will be coordinated and contribute to a cohereni identity and sense of place... building
massing... should relate to nearby buildings and the urban context..." .
Staff has suggested, that an architect.'or building designer should develop a site -specific design
based on an understanding of the context and the standards. This has not occurred. Rather, a
peak feature and stripes of contrasting concrete block have been added to the stock design as a
minimal response.
There is plenty of latitude to accommodate the large differences between the proposed
commercial building and the existing residential structure, without direct imitation of the historic
style. However, within this latitude, the proposed commercial building should be in more in
character with the historic context.
.—•..:. —. T.. .. _. Vie:-_..- ^«- .. _ - _ ... _
Attachment 4
ITEM NO.
4 MEETING DATE
STAFF
Citv of Fort Collins HEARING OFFICER
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave, Project Development Plan- #17-02
[Type I Administrative Hearing]
APPLICANT: Land Images Inc.
c/o Michael Chalona
215 W. Magnolia St., #202
Ft. Collins, CO, 80521
OWNER: Dodge Holdings Inc.
616 S. College Ave. .
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request redevelop a Cluck-U fast-food chicken restaurant to a Waffle House restaurant
including demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building. The property is
an existing .28 acre lot, on the east side of College Ave., between Myrtle and Laurel streets. The
lot is bounded by the historic Darrah House next door to the north, and Outpost/Sunsport retail
shop next door to the south, with an alley to the east. The area is zoned C-C, Community
Commercial District.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This project_has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Land Use
Code (LUC) and found to be in compliance with some, but not all, of the Standards.
The only significant outstanding issue from Staffs review of the project is the architectural design
of the proposed building. This is the reason behind Staffs recommendation of denial.
Staff contends that the P.D.P. does not comply with the applicable General Development
Standards for Mixed Use and Commercial Buildings found in Section 3.5.3, nor does it comply
with compatibility standards of Section 3.4.7 for development adjacent to Historic Resources.
These two sections complement one another heavily in this case, to require building design
consistent with the C-C District.
... _ COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES _ 281_N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
"The decision maker failed to receive all relevant evidence. Sections 3.5.1 (A) and 3.5.1 (B)
of the General Development Standards was substantially passed over by the decision maker
because of the absence of evidence from appellants."
Staff Response: The Hearing Officer carefully and thoroughly solicited and received all relevant
evidence offered at the hearing. The Hearing Officer did not fail to receive any relevant
evidence offered at the hearing.
Staff understands that this allegation flows from the appellants' perspective that they did not
offer the evidence they would have had, IF they had been involved prior to the hearing.
However, that is a different problem — the Hearing Officer did not fail to receive evidence
offered by the appellants, because as the appellants state, it was absent. This appears to be a
misunderstanding of this ground for appeal.
Staff Conclusion
Staff has carefully considered the appeal, including follow-up discussion with the applicants.
Staff acknowledges the merit of the applicant's ideas for -additional ways to enhance
compatibility of the new building. S osition at the hearing was that the PDP adequately
complied with the relevant standards ,f, uncil decides that new evidence warrants
reconsideration, staff recommends re' f; ing the item to the Hearing officer for rehearing. The
most effective way to address the issues would be.collaboration between the appellants and the
Waffle House applicants, which could occur prior to the rehearing.
,'Page 6.of 6
"Section 3.5.1 (A): `The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered
within the context of the surrounding area.' Issues of kitchen exhaust fumes and odor were
not properly considered."
Staff Response: The appellants asked about this in the hearing. The Waffle House
representatives replied that there is a heavy duty ventilation system to the outside with filters
designed to minimize odors. No standard is being violated by the PDP on this issue.
"Section 3.5.1 (B): `Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the
repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces,
similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of
building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the
immediate area of the proposed in -fill development.' Exhibit #1 is a re -designed site plan
which addresses site planning aspects of the code referenced above."
Staff Response: Similar to 3.4.7 above, this standard calls for new construction to protect and
enhance the historical and architectural value of an adjacent historic property, with compatible
new buildings. This standard was covered in the hearing, but again the appellants advocate
additional ways to achieve this.
"Section 3.5.1 (E)(1): `Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already
being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other
characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and .
texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be
compatible, despite the differences in materials.' Exhibit #3 is an image of the historic
Darrah House."
Staff Response: these issues permeated the discussion at the hearing. Again, the appellants
advocate additional ways to achieve this.
"Section 3.5.3 (D)(1): The appellants will present arguments regarding incompatibility of
the proposed awning and will show compatible options (exhibit#2y"
Staff Response: This standard calls for the 'features and color range of a new building to be
tailored specifically to the site and its context. " It further states that "a standardized prototype
design shall be modified if necessary to meet the provisions of this Latid Use Code. "
The awning colors were discussed at the hearing. The awning has'very bright colors conveying
an-atterilion=gra'bbing'corporaie image rather than a tailored response to the local context. At'
the hearing, Staff did not pursue this issue because a) the fabric is a changeable finish item
rather than permanent architecture; b) attention had been focused on more integral
architectural characteristics including some other architectural aspects of the awning, c) the
awning is a positive feature of the building; and d) the standard is somewhat subjective; and
Page 4 of 6
-
'�._
This Appeal
Appellants: Judith A. and Grant W. Reid
1020 Cunningham Drive #3
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Owners of the Darrah House, next door to the proposed Waffle House
Complete Allegations: The Appellant's complete allegations are quoted below, as
"bold quotations", with Staff s response to each allegation in italics. The allegations are listed
in the order of the Permissible Grounds for Appeal as listed above.
"The decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code.
The appellants will present arguments and exhibits relevant to the following sections of the
ccode that were improperly interpreted:
Section 3.4.7 (E): Historic and Cultural Resources, New Construction."
Staff Response: This standard calls for new construction to be designed to be in character with
existing historic structures. It was emphasized heavily in the staff report to the Hearing Officer;
and it was discussed and negotiated extensively in the hearing. Staff found the PDP to
adequately comply with this standard at the hearing. Again, the appellants offer additional ways
to respond to this standard as explained earlier in this memo. .
For convenient reference, this complete standard reads as follows:
(E) New Construction.
(I) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new buildings shall be similar to those of
existing historic buildings on the same block. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as
walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller
buildings or portions of building shall be located interior to the site. Buildings at the ends of blocks shall be of a
similar height to buildings in the adjoining blocks.
(2) New buildings shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures, but not be an imitation of
historic styles. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign.bands,. shall be aligned with
those of existing historic buildings to strengthen the visual ties among buildings.. Window patterns of existing
buildings (size, heightnumber) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building
entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6.
(3) The dominant building material of existing historic buildings adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be
appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block
Page 3 bf 6
house with a front yard which REPLICATES the historic house. Instead, the new building should
have a traditional type and amount of detailing designed with compatibility in mind. The Staff
Report suggested some specific ways to achieve this. (The Waffle House applicants had asked staff
to offer such specific suggestions.)
The appellants now advocate additional ways to respond to the standards, including toning down
awning colors and moving the proposed building back from the sidewalk to provide a front yard
shrub bed. These ideas have merit in light of the relevant standards.
After answering the questions above, the decision for Council is whether the PDP approval should
be: a) modified with conditions to be addressed in Final Compliance plans; b) remanded back to the
Hearing Officer; or c) overturned, resulting in denial of the PDP.
Permissible Grounds for Appeal
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 Section 2-48 of the City Code states the permissible grounds for
appeal, as follows. The %JftM portions are alleged by the Appellants as grounds for the
appeal:
'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)
M
a) The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter;
01
C)
d)
to a��aik) Q11
-
Page 2-6f 6 _
x � ,
Attachment 3
Commm,_.y Planning and Environmental Sc- ices
Advance Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner
THRU: Joe Frank, Director of Advance Plannin
Cameron Gloss, Director of Curr ' t P
Greg Byrne, Director of C.P.E.S' -
John Fischbach, City Manager
DATE: November 6, 2002
RE: Appeal of 616-S. College, Waffle House Project Development Plan
This memorandum is Staffs response to an Appeal of the Findings, Conclusions, and Decigion
of the Administrative Hearing Officer approving the 616 S. College, Waffle House Project
Development Plan (PDP) dated September 30, 2002.
The detailed allegations define three main questions for Council to consider:
1) Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing? and
2) Was evidence presented at the hearing that was false or grossly misleading?
3) Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code, or does new evidence presented by the appellants warrant reconsideration of the decision?
The first question regarding a fair hearing has to. do with required notification of neighbors.
However, the notification requirements and established rules of procedure were clearly met. Based
on a conversation with the appellants, staff understands that -this allegation involves a
misunderstanding about the requirements.
The second question involves an allegation that certain dimensions on the site plan were incorrectly
drawn.
The third question involves consideration of certain Land Use Code standards regarding building
compatibility. Paraphrasing the standards, they require new construction to be designed to be in =
character with existing historic structures. This was emphasized heavily in the staff report to the
Hearing Officer; and it was discussed and negotiated extensively in the hearing. There is significant
room for interpretation because of the differences between the historic wooden house and the new
chain restaurant. Staff is not aware of any one who contends the new building must be. a wooden
281 No, College Avenue; ,]
— FAX (970) 2246111-- T
376
�� �` g�d�
G) cz,-F-FIP
I
t.ZG
Zl A
F,5
=ems
a ( f
t4l
No Text
No Text
EX. Ash
New
Concrete
(D
cm
m V
Cd re,
Ex. Tree t
1: � Pa7�p, MOUSE! ,
Ex. Drive
Ex. Concrete Walk
Proposed Waffle House
1806 SF
Entry
Pole Lights —J Outpost Sunsport
Ex. Concrete Walk
W A°F'�..F,�����-E
Illustrative Site Plan
77
vvoom— wo-
000
ZW
Ex. Tree
I Z.
7
b0000
Trash Enclosure
Flo
Concrete
Service Area
Color Concrete
Panels
Asphalt Parkin
Parallel Parking (2)
Lot
Plantings
Around Parking
Lot
lillike Rook iFw-
Ex: Apphell'
Waffle House RembKwant
616 S. CNIe" Ave.
y
Proled Devwopmnt Plan
Se"nbemr 25.20D2
H' U� S� E
0 4 8 16 24
Sale: 1". a,
LAND (HALES, W.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Advance Planning Department
9.25.02
To: Interested Parties
Fm: Clark Mapes, Project Planner 40
RE: Staff Recommendation for 9.25.02 Hearing
Staff acknowledges the response to comments presented by the applicants today in an
informal meeting.
In general, staff agrees that the revised building design adequately responds to the
comments, and so staff is now able to recommend approval if the following conditions are
met:
Add a note to the plans that no signage shall be placed on the north face of the building.
Provide the clarified sign frieze detail as discussed between staff and the applicant.
3. Change the texture of the masonry above the sill, on the western portion of the building
to ground face block, as a compromise to using brick as a more refined and urban
material than split face block.
4. Specify a rust or bronze color for the window structures.
281 North Colleg -enue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 8052' -80 • (970) 221-6376
FAX (970) 2... �-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplatuu..b@fcgov com
51—?1\� — cN S�
1 jq &t, r7 eater
CL Co w a, r k
Gt�QIT 1c J-louse
bUc-s Lczmc r we - Ci o �OrT, C-oLLiii.S
i ,¢ WZa c -" C� Fa-r+ C'o U I h s 9V6 jv`4j�-`
�.Z5.u2
wawa- Foul
5tel%,v D. ff°9 ,w — ; ,Ij t 5A ,f' owiv
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 7
1. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval, with the exception of
item number 2, specified in Clark Mapes' memo dated September 25, 2002,
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2. The Applicant shall design and construct the building in conformance with the
Applicant's revised site plan submitted on September 25, 2002, attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
3. The Applicant shall design, construct and incorporate two sign frieze panels, one on
the south wall and one on the west wall of the building, in conformance with the
illustrations attached hereto as Exhibit D .and as approved by City of Fort Collins
Planning Staff.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable development standards set forth in
Article 3 of the LUC, including but not limited to, section 3.5.1(1) concerning
mechanical equipment screening.
DATED THIS 30t' day of September, 2002.
,q
Linda C. Michow, Hearing Officer
LCM\57069.224322682.01
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 6
2. sloping roof with overhang and brackets;
3. stepped parapets.
Short of depicting the above examples through illustrations in the LUC, the
regulations do provide sufficient detail and guidance to require the Applicant to
enhance the design of the Waffle House building with more architectural features
than the standard Waffle House prototype. And, consistent with these
requirements, City staff provided the Applicant with examples of architectural
detailing and characteristics, as set forth in Attachments 10, 11 and 12 of the
Staff Report. The Hearing Officer notes that features such as window sills,
individual windows with trim details, sign friezes, and a top element are depicted
in Attachments 10, 11 and 12 of the staff report.
The Applicant has agreed to add these types of features as reflected in the
revised site plan, attached as Exhibit C. In addition, the Applicant has agreed to
incorporate a sign frieze on the south and west walls of the building consistent
with the illustrations depicted on attached Exhibit D. The Hearing Officer finds
that this revised site plan meets the standards and intent of Article 3 of the LUC.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
A. The Waffle House Project, PDP #17-02, satisfies the land use standards of the
Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District, subject to the conditions of approval
stated below.
B. The Project complies with the administrative and procedural requirements set forth
in Division 2.1, Division 2.2 and Division 2.4 of Article 2, Administration.
C. The Project meets the applicable requirements of Article 3, General Development
Standards, including but not limited to sections 3.4.7 and 3.5.3, subject to the
conditions of approval stated below.
DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Hearing Officer hereby approves the Waffle House PDP, No. 17-02, 616 S. College
Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado subject to the following conditions of approval:
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 5
resources in the City and to ensure that new buildings contribute to the unique
character of the CC zone district.
The Hearing Officer has reviewed the applicable provisions of the City's land use
regulations in the context of the evidence and testimony presented at the
hearing. While certain provisions of the LUC contain broad statements about
compatibility, the regulations also provide specific standards and, thus, sufficient
guidance to review the Applicant's Project in relation to the LUC regulations. For
instance, Section 3.5.3(D) provides:
building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of the zone
district... with predominant materials, elements, features, color range
and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context ... A
standardized prototype design shall be modified if necessary to meet
the provisions of this Land Use Code. (emphasis added)
This subsection further supplies examples and explanations of this requirement,
including without limitation the following:
(6) Base and Top Treatments. All facades shall have:
(a) a recognizable base consisting of (but not limited to):
1. thicker walls, ledges, or sills;
2. integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry;
3. integrally colored and patterned materials such as smooth -finished
stone or tile;
4. lighter or darker colored materials, mullions or panels; or
5. planters.
(b) a recognizable "top" consisting of (but not limited to):
1. cornice treatments, other than just colored "stripes or "bands", with
integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry or
differently colored materials;
LCM\57069.224122682.01
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 4
structures and structures in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent
to the project site. Section 3.4.7(B) further provides that "new buildings must be
compatible with the historic character of any such historic buildings, whether on
the project site or adjacent thereto." The uncontroverted evidence indicates that
the Project is directly adjacent to the Darrah House, which, as Mr. Mapes
testified, is a structure "eligible" for federal, state and local historic designation.
Photographs of the Darrah House reveal the historic features of the structure. It
is the City's position that the initial design of the Waffle House Project did not
adequately address or respect the historic character of the Darrah House
because of its flat, uniform concrete block facade.
In response to this concern, the Applicant submitted revised site plan drawings at
the hearing, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, that
accomplishes the following:
■ adds a concrete window sill of a different color from the building facade
under the window sills to define the windows;
• adds stripes along the upper windows and awnings to define the upper
windows;
■ incorporates block pieces between every two panes of window glass to
break up the monotonous window front;
■ adds a cornice treatment on the top element of the building which
protrudes 4" from the block face;
■ adds pilasters to the north wall;
■ adds two sign friezes; and
■ uses split face CMU block building.
The Applicant testified. that while certain features, such as the sign friezes, are
not required by the City's regulations, it was willing nonetheless to redesign
portions of the Project to address the City's concerns. Clark Mapes agreed that
features, such as sign friezes, are not specifically required by the Land Use
Code,'but that the overall intent of the applicable regulations is to protect historic
LCMX57069.22W22682.01
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 3
3. The Project is in compliance with CC District Standards (Division 4.14):
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Project complies with all
applicable provisions of Division 4.14 of the LUC. Specifically, the land use
standard set forth in subsection (E)(2)(d), the only applicable standard, requires
that all buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet. The staff
report and testimony of staff indicate that the proposed Waffle House building
technically complies with the minimum 20-feet height standard in that -the peaked
portion of the roof is twenty feet in height, even though the remainder of the
building is approximately fifteen feet in height. There was no evidence or
testimony presented to oppose this finding.
4. The Project is or will be in Compliance with Article 3 — General
Development Standards:
The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the Project complies, or
will comply based on conditions of approval, with all of the applicable
requirements of Article 3, as explained below.
The staff report indicates that the Project complies with Article 3, except with
respect to architectural design issues concerning the building. For this reason,
City staff initially recommended denial of the Project. Clark Mapes, the City's
planner, testified at the hearing that a subsequent meeting with the applicant on
the day of the hearing served to resolve the architectural and design issues of
the Project. Mr. Mapes stated that, with certain conditions of. approval, as
outlined in his memo dated September 25, 2002, attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B, he could recommend approval of the Project.
Mr. Mapes outlined the following,' applicable standards of Article 3 which, until the
date of the hearing, had not been met by the Applicant: Section 3.4.7(A), (B) &
(E), with respect to preserving historical resources; Section 3.5.1,..with respect to
building and project compatibility; and Section 3.5.3, with respect to urban design
characteristics of the CC district.
As Mr. Mapes testified and as set forth in the LUC, Section 3.4.7(A) provides that
one of the purposes of the standard is intended to ensure that new construction
is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties
in the surrounding neighborhood and to protect designated or eligible historic
LCMZ7069.22W22682.01 `
City of Fort Collins — Type 1 Administrative Hearing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
616 S. College Avenue - PDP — #17-02
Administrative Hearing Date: September 25, 2002
Page 2
RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the
following evidence: (1) Planning Department staff report and staff memo dated
September 25, 2002; (2) application, plats, maps, reports and other supporting
documents submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's agents to the City of Fort
Collins; (3) various photographs and sketches of the Project in the context of other
neighboring uses and buildings; and (4) a tape recording of testimony provided during
the hearing. The Fort Collins Land Use Code ("LUC"), the City's Comprehensive Plan,
and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence
considered by the Hearing Officer.
ATTENDANCE AT HEARING: The hearing was attended by those individuals
identified on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Applicant was
represented by Michael Chalona of Land Images; Walter Barineau, Barry Cowart, and
Ken Williams of Waffle House, and Todd Rogers, attorney for Waffle House.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
1. The Project is in Compliance with Article 2, Administration:
Pursuant to Section 2.2.8 of the LUC, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds that
the record reflects that all of the. procedural requirements and development
review procedures for development applications and project development plans
have been met with respect to this Project.
2. The Proposed Use Is a Permitted Use within the Community -Commercial
(CC) Zone District:
The staff report indicates, and Section 4.17(B)(2)(c)(2) of the LUC provides, that
the proposed land use, as a standard restaurant, is a permitted use in'ttfo C-C
zone district, subject to administrative review. No evidence presented at the
hearing contradicts this finding, although Judith Reid, owner of the Darrah
House; .questioned the odor, noise and fumes that the proposed use would emit.
The Applicant testified in response that: (1) the ventilation system is designed to
minimize odors, (2) no deep fryers are used and (3) there will be no outdoor
seating to contribute'to the noise.
LCM\'7069.22\422682.01
Citv of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental services
Current Planning
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
September 25, 2002
616 S. College Avenue — PDP — #17-02
Land Images, Inc.
215 W. Magnolia Street, #202
Fort Collins; Colorado 80521... .
OWNER: Dodge Holdings, Inc.
616 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
HEARING OFFICER:
Linda C. Michow, Esq.
Gorsuch Kirgis LLP
Tower I, Suite 1000
1515 Arapahoe Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant has submitted a request to redevelop an
existing .28 acre lot, demolishing an existing building formerly housing a Cluck-U fast
food restaurant, and constructing a new building to contain a Waffle House restaurant
(the "Project'). The property, zoned Community -Commercial (CC), is located on the
east side of College Avenue, between Myrtle and Laurel Streets, adjacent to the Darrah
House on the north, and a retail shop on the south side.
_. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval with; -conditions:
ZONE.DISTRICT '_Comrhu.nity-Comme�cial•Zone District (CC).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Evidence
presented to, the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly noticed in
accordance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land
Use Code, opened the, hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 25, 2002 in
the City Planning Offices, conference rooms C & D, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
LCMk57069.22W22682.01
281 North College Avenue •. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 416-2020
f
GORSUCH KIRGI_ LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TOWFR L SUITE 1000 11515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER. COLORADO 80202 I TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 I FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001
LINDA C. MICHOW DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376-5061
email: Imichow@gorsuch.com
September 30, 2002
Ms. Georgiana Deines
Administrative Support Supervisor
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: 616 S. College Avenue PDP — #17-02 (Waffle House)
Dear Georgiana:
Enclosed please find the .Findings, Conclusions, and Decision for the
above -captioned project.
We have also enclosed the audio tape, along with the original sign -in
sheet from the September 25, 2002 hearing.
Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
Respectfully yours,
GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP
d G4a.�'J
Linda C. Michow
LCM:cw
Enclosures
RECEIVED
OCT 022
CURRENT PLANNING
LCM\57069.22\404713.01
Attachment 2
GORSUCH KIRGIJ LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DWER 1. SUITE 1000 11515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER. COLORADO 50202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FACSIMILE (303) 376-5001
LINDA C. MICHOW DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376-5061
email:lmichow@gorsuch.cem
October 1, 2002
Ms. Georgiana Deines
Administrative Support Supervisor
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: 616 S. College Avenue PDP — #17-02 (Waffle House)
Dear Georgiana:
Enclosed for your file, or for return to Land Images, Inc., please find the
development plans for the above -captioned project.
Respectfully yours,
GO�/RVS^I^U�-�C/G^�H*KIRGIS LLP
V C
Linda C. Michow
LCM:cw
Enclosure
LCMZ7069.224104713.01
M�
•t. 4nnlllllM
-7k-XIS-T*
.AlTlufa-
ax gr to fi
2. The decision maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the code.
The appellants will present arguments and exhibits relevant to the following sections of the
code that were improperly interpreted:
Section 3.4.7 (E): Historic and Cultural Resources, New Construction.
Section 3.5.1 (A). "The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered
within the context of the surrounding area." Issues of kitchen exhaust fumes and odor
were not properly considered.
Section 3.5.1 (B): "Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the
repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces,
similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of
building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the
immediate area of the proposed in -fill development." Exhibit #1 is a re -designed site plan
which addresses site planning aspects of the code referenced above. (Reduced copy filed
with this appeal.)
Section 3.5.1 (E)(1): `Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already
being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other
characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and
texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be
compatible, despite the differences in materials." Exhibit #3 is an image of the historic
Darrah House.
Section 3.5.3 (D)(1): The appellants will present arguments regarding incompatibility of
the proposed awning and will show compatible options (exhibit #2). .
Signed:
Judith A. Reid
Grant W. Reid
D L E ATTACHMENT 1
OC T 2 << 2002 D
CITY CLERK October 24, 2002
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Action being Appealed:
Findings, conclusions, and decisions on 616 So. College Avenue ( PDP- #17-02)
The decision of approval with conditions was made on September 30, 2002.
Appellants:
Judith A. Reid, owner of Darrah House at 612 So. College which lies adjacent and to the
north of 616 So. College.
Phone number: 970-229-1527
Grant W. Reid, ASLA, husband of Darrah House owner and Landscape Architect.
Phone numbers: hm 970-226-2963; wk 970-491-7098
Address of both appellants: 1020 Cunningham Drive #3, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Grounds for Appeal:
1) The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing.
a) The established rules of procedure were not properly followed.
Prior to the official hearing by the Hearing Officer, Linda C. Michow, Esq., no
neighborhood meeting was called and no contact was made with the adjacent owners,
Judith and Grant Reid, to show plans and elicit their input. Accordingly, the Reids had no
time to investigate and digest proposals prior to the hearing. As a result, the hearing
officer did not have the benefit of the Reids' response.
b) Some evidence presented at the meeting was substantially false and misleading.
The plan displayed by Land Images, Inc. showed the Darrah House to be significantly
further away from the joint property line than is the case. This plan also showed the curb
as it relates to the frontage property line in a significantly incorrect location.
Note: Both of these misleading elements are relevant to the City Code of Article 3 -
General Development Standards Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility.
By authority of City Code, Section 2.48 (2)(c) "the right to rebut false or misleading
evidence", the appellants are prepared to display a plan showing correct relationships.
c) The decision maker failed to receive all relevant evidence.
Sections 3.5.1 (A) and 3.5.1 (B) of the General Development Standards was substantially
passed over by the decision maker because of the absence of evidence from appellants.
AGENDA ITE% SUMMARY ITS NUMBER: 29
DATE: November 19, 2002
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Clark Mapes
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the September 25, 2002, decision of the Administrative Hearing
Officer to approve the 616 South College Avenue, Waffle House Project Development Plan
(PDP).
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code, and after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Administrative Hearing
Officer or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Hearing Officer's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 30, 2002, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the subject Project
Development Plan, which involves removing an existing Cluck-U fast-food chicken restaurant
and constructing a new Waffle House restaurant. The property is an existing lot on the east side
of College Avenue, between Myrtle and Laurel streets. The lot is bounded by the historic Darrah
House next door to the north, and Outpost/Sunsport retail shop next door to the south, with an
alley to the east. The area is zoned C-C, Community Commercial District.
On October 24, 2002, the City Clerk's office received an Amended Notice of Appeal of the
decision to approve the PDP. In this Appeal, from the Appellants Judith A. and Grant W. Reid,
it is alleged that:
(1) The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing; and
(2) The decision failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code.
The attached documents include:
Attachment 1: Amended Notice of Appeal, received October 24, 2002, which supercedes the
original Notice of Appeal received October 8, 2002
Attachment 2: City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing Officer Type I Administrative
Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Attachment 3: City Staff memo in response to the appeal
Attachment 4: Staff Report to the Administrative Hearing Officer for the public hearing
Attachment 5: Minutes of the Meeting before the Administrative Hearing Officer, held January
16 and February 13, 2002
Staffsimply did not find the colors to be a significant enough issue to warrant the effort to seek
another set of colors.
At the hearing, staff noted all of these points. Staff also acknowledged the merit of the concern,
and noted that the hearing was "a good time and place to address it". However, at the hearing
the idea simply did not rise to the level of requiring the Waffle House applicants to change the
colors.
"The decision maker failed to conduct a fair hearing.
The established rules of procedure were not properly followed. Prior to the official
hearing by the Hearing Officer, Linda C. Michow, Esq., no neighborhood meeting was
called and no contact was made with the adjacent owners, Judith and Grant Reid, to show
plans and elicit their input. Accordingly the Reids had no time to investigate and digest
proposals prior to the hearing. As a result the hearing officer did not have the benefit of
the Reids' response."
Staff Response: The established ruled of procedure were properly followed for this
Administrative Type 1 Hearing. Signs were properly posted on the property, advance notice of
the hearing was mailed as required, and required notice was published in the local newspaper.
No neighborhood meeting is required, nor is any additional contact with the adjacent land
owners.
"Some evidence presented at the meeting was substantially false and misleading. The plan
displayed by Land Images, Inc. showed the Darrah House to be significantly further away
from the joint property line than is the case. This plan also showed the curb as it relates to
the frontage property line in a significantly incorrect location. Note: Both of these
misleading elements are relevant to the City Code of Article 3 — General Development
Standards, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility. By authority of City Code,
Section 2.48 (2)(c) `the right to rebut false or misleading evidence', the appellants are
prepared to display a plan showing correct relationships."
Staff Response: The exact dimensions provided by the appellants would have had no effect on
staff's review of the project. The front sidewalk is apparently about 21, feet wide rather than
about 26 feet as the project plan. shows;�and the house next door is a66i f 23 feet from the Waffle
House building rather than 29 feet as portrayed on the project plan.
Staff contends the project plan adequately illustrates the essential relationships, i.e. it shows the
existing house next door with its yard, and it shows the new building placed next to the existing
sidewalk. The incorrect dimensions were not apparent to staff without measuring, and do not
affect the essential relationships. Staff had visited the site; and plans were supplemented with
clear photos provided to the Hearing Officer showing these relationships.
— _
Page 5 of 6
2
1 THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:
2 MS.
MICHOW:
I'm
going to
call to order
the
3 administrative
hearing
for
the Waffle
House ,Project
at 616
4 South College Avenue. Project Development Plan No. 17-02.
5 Today is Wednesday, September 25th. And we are
6 currently in the City of Fort Collins Administration
7 Building at 281 North College Avenue in Fort Collins.
8 My name is Linda Michow and I will be the
9 administrative hearing officer for tonight's hearing. I am
10 a land use and municipal attorney in Denver, Colorado, and I
11 sit as the hearing officer pursuant to the City of Fort
12 Collins Land Use Development Project.
13 I'm going to outline the procedures for tonight's
14 hearing. And as you can tell, this is being tape-recorded
15 and that in case there is an appeal of this decision, we
16 need to keep a record of it.
17 I'm going to start off the presentation with the
18 presentation from plaintiff's staff. Then the advocate will
19 have an opportunity to present. And then we'll have any
20 testimony from anyone in the public who wishes to speak in
21 favor of or against the project.
22 We'll then have a response from the advocate to
23 any questions or concerns raised by the staff or anyone in
24 the public. And then we'll have staff give any other
25 comments for additional statements they'd like to make.