Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT - 51-90 - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATIONCity of Fort Collins Develops it Services Planning Department I54go"I 161011 TO: Risk Management FROM: Ted Shepard, City Planner DATE: March 7, 1991 RE: Statement of Incident: Taco Bell Notice of Claim My records indicate that a meeting took place on March 13, 1990, at City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue', in the Planning Department conference room, attended by Mike Herzig, Development Engineer, and Les Nordhagen, Taco Caliente, Inc., and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss expansion/new construction plans for the Taco Bell restaurant at the northeast corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road. Mr. Nordhagen began the meeting by explaining that two adjacent properties were for sale. These properties were the Rumley residence at 1535 Remington Street and the Wickersham office (at that time occupied by KSKY radio station) 1530 South College Avenue. The Rumley property is located across the alley to the east of Taco Bell. The Wickersham property is located adjacent to Taco Bell on the north. Mr. Nordhagen explained that Taco Bell had several ideas since both properties had certain assets that appealed to Taco Caliente, Inc. For instance, Taco Caliente's number one priority was to increase revenues by adding a drive-thru facility. Mr. Nordhagen made it very clear that the College/Prospect store was the only restaurant in the Taco Caliente chain that did not have a drive-thru. He estimated that adding a drive-thru would increase their business by 25% to 40%. The primary reason for looking at acquiring one of the adjacent properties, according to Mr. Nordhagen, was to find ways to accommodate a drive-thru. Secondarily, Taco Caliente had a need for office space. Mr. Nordhagen expressed that one of the two properties might be a positive location for a traditional office with several full time employees. Thirdly, Taco Caliente was aware that the City Engineering Department had plans to construct intersection improvements and that these improvements would require an undetermined amount of land from the Taco Bell site to accommodate these improvements. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 / This amount of land would obviously affect the number of parking spaces on the site. Since Taco Bell did not have a drive-thru, the available parking on the site was critical in order to conduct business. Mr. Nordhagen then asked Mike Herzig and myself what we thought of these three situations. I responded by addressing the expansion onto the Rumley parcel first. I explained that using the Rumley parcel to create an exit lane for a potential drive-thru that had egress onto Remington would be very difficult. In addition, using the Rumley residence for a traditional office, with full-time employees, would also be inadvisable. The reasons for this advice was because the Rumley parcel is located in the R-L (Low Density Residential) zone, as well as being located in "Preservation Area" of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The R-L zone is one of the most restrictive zones in the City. According to the Zoning Code: "The R-L Low Density Residential District designation is for low density residential areas located throughout the city." While the R-L zone allows any land use located on.a Planned Unit Development plan as defined, processed and approved according to Section 29-526, one of the All Development Criteria of Section 29-526 is the following: "Number 5: Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to, Master Street Plan and other adopted street policies, Open Space Plan and other adopted open space policies?" It was my interpretation that a P.U.D. on the Rumley parcel to allow a traditional office with full-time employees and drive-thru egress onto Remington Street would be in violation of the criteria of the "Preservation Area" of the East Side Neighborhood Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. I suggested to Mr. Nordhagen that an office, exclusive of the drive-thru egress, on the Rumley parcel would have a better chance of meeting the applicable criteria, but that the drive-thru egress was the most offensive element. He again stated that the drive- thru component was the first priority in exploring possible options on the adjacent properties. The discussion then focused on the Wickersham property. I stated that the Wickersham property was zoned R-H, High Density Residential, which was not as restrictive as the R-L zone. In addition, the R-H zone along College Avenue was designated as "Fringe Area" on the East Side Neighborhood Plan which is not as restrictive as the "Preservation Area". I informed Mr. Nordhagen that the R-H High Density Residential District is for areas containing high density residential uses. In addition, "standard restaurants" are listed as a use that shall be permitted in the R-H District provided that such a restaurant comply with the landscape requirements set forth in Section 29-204. I then informed Mr. Nordhagen that a restaurant that featured a drive-thru facility was not "standard", and that to include such a drive-thru, that such a plan would have to be processed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Mr. Nordhagen then asked what were the chances of a P.U.D. for a Taco Bell restaurant, featuring a drive=thru facility, being approved on the Wickersham parcel. I informed him that such a P.U.D. would not meet the minimum required percentage (50%) on the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial point chart of the Land Development Guidance System. I then informed Mr. Nordhagen that the Planning and Zoning Board is empowerd to grant variances to the requirements of the point chart subject to certain criteria. Mr. Nordhagen then asked about using the Wickersham parcel for a typical Taco Bell restaurant but one that did not feature a drive- thru facility. I then mistakenly informed Mr. Nordhagen that absent the drive-thru facility, that a Taco Bell would then be a "standard restaurant" which would be considered an allowable use in the R-H zone. I failed to distinguish the difference, under the Zoning Code, of three types of restuarants defined to be allowed in Fort Collins. In between a "drive-in" restaurant and a "standard" restaurant, is a middle definition for a "fast food!' restaurant. Only "standard" restaurants are allowed in the R-H zone. Both "drive-in" and "fast food" restaurants can only be allowed as a P.U.D. A Taco Bell, even absent a drive-thru facility, is not a "standard" restaurant but, rather, a "fast food" restaurant. This distinction then moves the Taco Bell, without drive-thru, into the "fast food" category, and hence, not allowed by right in the R-H zone. My failure was to rely on intuition rather than go to the definitions under the Zoning Code. Intuitively, I believed that there were two types of restaurants, either standard sit-down restaurants, or fast food restaurants that typically had drive-thru facilities. The fact that our Code distinguishes between "drive- in" and "fast food" was unknown to me at the time. The fact that Taco Caliente Inc. made such a strong statement about the need to add a drive-thru facility affected my impression of their needs. I did not seriously consider their option of constructing a new facility, at substantial expense, without drive- thru, on the Wickersham property. After all, the purpose of the meeting was to explore options to add the drive-thru facility. It was not until a I received a phone call from Mr. Nordhagen on August 16, 1990, during which he stated that he —was under the assumption that a Taco Bell, without drive-thru, could be constructed on the Wickersham property as an allowable use under the R-H zone, that I realized that that an error may have occurred. I immediately researched the Zoning Code, and conferred with the Zoning Administrator and concluded that Mr. Nordhagen's assumption was incorrect. I then wrote a letter clarifying the definitions of the three types of restaurants. This letter is dated August 17, 1990 and is enclosed for your records. This concludes my statement regarding the allegations made by Mr. Roger Clark. The meeting of March 13, 1990 included many other topics relevant to the property. These topics centered around the Choices 195 Capital Improvement Program, right-of-way dedication versus acquistion .versus condemnation, the need for a west -bound right turn lane, closure of curb cuts, public and private use of the alley, limited turn movements on Prospect, off -site parking in a residential zone, submittal of a traffic impact analysis, saving existing trees, possible scores on the point chart, signing up for conceptual review, and having a neighborhood information meeting. As you can see, the topics ranged far and wide. The general tone of the meeting was exploratory. Given all the issues raised by Mike Herzig and myself, I an very surprised that Taco Caliente Inc: purchased the Wickersham property without proper contingency clauses. I remain convinced that Taco Bell never intends to develop a new facility without drive-thru capability. As proof, the plan submitted for concept review on July 23, 1990,included a double drive-thru lane. Enclosed please find copies of relevant correspondence.