Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/02/1999• Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Gavaldon, Meyer, Craig, Bernth, Cotton. Member Torgerson was absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Eckman, Schlueter, and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent Agenda. Election of Officers: Member Meyer moved to postpone the Election of Officers until October 7, 1999 with an amendment made by Member Carpenter that if all members are not present at the October 7th meeting that the elections will be . held. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Colton voting in the negative. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 2, 1998, January 21, and February 18, 1999 Planing and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #33-94E Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 7 (Village Inn) - Final Bob Blanchard pulled item 2 for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent item 1. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 7 (Village Inn) — Final, #33-94E Project Description: Request for a 5,000 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant on 1.24 acres; located at the northeast comer of Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive. The site is Lot 7 & Pad H of the Harmony Safeway Shopping Center. The . parcel is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Planning and Zonint ,oard Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 2 of 6 Recommendation: Approval with one condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard gave a presentation giving a history of the shopping center. He also gave a description of the building and the pad size. Staff was recommending approval of the project with one condition, removal of the use of the accent color "Mulberry". Planner Shepard asked the Board to consider "toning down" the colors on the building. Planner Shepard gave the Board Members a hand-out listing 21 other projects in the City that have had a color scheme changed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Michael Davison, Wyatt and Associates, representing the applicant, discussed the condition of removing the "Mulberry" color. Mr. Davison stated that the client would like to see the "Mulberry" color included in the plan. Mr. Davison did mention that the client is willing to cooperate and work with the decision of the council. Public Comment: Discussion: Member Bemth asked for clarification of the colors on the building. Planner Shepard described the building colors/materials which included"stone" that matches the Safeway building color, "Mulberry" accent stripes, window coverings in "Burnt Sienna" orange, canopies of "Prussian" green, and "Neon" signage on a synthetic stucco background. The Board questioned a "Neon" orange on the sample board. Mr. Davison stated that was the neon color of the Village Inn sign. Mr. Davison had a better sample board for the record. Member Gavaldon asked if there are similar buildings like this in other communities. Mr. Davison responded that there is a similar building in Aurora, CO. Similar by means of the stone coating on the building. Member Craig asked Planner Shepard if the colors "blended in" with the shopping center, as necessary in the LDGS under A.2.7 Architecture — Neighborhood compatibility. Planner Shepard believes the "Mulberry' does not "blend in". Staff feels the other two colors, which are not on any other buildings, will not be detrimental to the compatibility of the shopping center. Member Craig asked Planner Shepard if the approval of color on this building would allow the "splashing" of color on additional buildings to be reviewed in the future. Planner Shepard responded there is a possibility that could occur. Planning and Zoning Boardonutes • September 6, 1999 Page 3 of 6 • Member Carpenter asked Planner Shepard to review the buildings that have approval in the shopping center, and the colors on those buildings. Planner Shepard responded that the shopping center is dominated by the Safeway, which is a monochromatic neutral, light tone with smooth and split -face block and stone. Centennial Bank and a Multi -tenant Retail building were approved in the shopping center, also possess the neutral, light tone, with blocks and stone. The LDGS gives good guidance on compatibility, so it makes the recommendation of the condition to remove the "Mulberry" a judgement call. Planner Shepard hoped to bring this item to the board clear and simple. He hoped to avoid changing color combinations or changing each color, but simply to delete the accent color "Mulberry". Member Carpenter expressed concern with all of the colors, not only the "Mulberry" as in the staff recommendation. Planner Shepard suggested continuing the project and using the board's discussion to give direction to the applicant as to what the Board is looking for in the project. Member Gavaldon asked a question about the signage as it relates to the LDGS. Planner Shepard noted the traditional 'trailing neon" off of the "V" in Village and off of the "n" in Inn have been deleted off the proposal. Color of the neon is not part of the code requirements. Member Gavaldon felt he did not want to micro -manage the project. He wanted to give the applicant a strong direction for better use of everyone's . time. Planner Shepard again suggested the Board provide some indication to the applicant of what needs to be achieved. ' Member Bemth asked of Mr. Davison if the applicant has thought of any alternate colors. Mr. Davison responded that there is a dark beige color they have been looking at to replace the "Mulberry" accent color, which is called "Putty". The applicant still wanted to maintain the colors of the "Burnt Sienna" orange and the "Prussian" green to maintain the corporate image. The applicant was open to eliminating the "Mulberry" and would bring a more earth tone to the building, like the Centennial Bank and the Multi - tenant building. Member Carpenter asked the applicant if they had any color options to tone down the "Burnt Sienna" and the "Prussian" green. Mr. Davison responded that the applicant wanted to keep the colors, as they are important to the corporate image. The applicant did not have any other colors at this time. The applicant wanted to bring the corporate colors back into the building, which was a new architectural prototype, unlike most other Village Inn buildings. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Davison if the applicant could come back with a color rendering with the "Mulberry" color replaced with the "Putty" color. Mr. Davison agreed to this. Planning and Zonin; oard Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 4 of 6 Member Meyer asked Planner Shepard if the "Putty' color would be adding another color, which is going against the staff recommendation of removing a color. Planner Shepard responded that the "Putty' color is neutral and is an acceptable substitute. Member Gavaldon moved to continue the project until the September 16,1999 hearing and that the "Mulberry" color be changed to "Putty" on a color rendering and an amendment made by Member Carpenter that the "Prussian" green and the "Burnt Sienna" orange be "toned down" to more neutral, natural colors. Member Carpenter seconded the motion and added the amendment. Member Craig asked if the applicant would be interested in a condition that would remove two colors instead of one, since there is already a condition of removing the "Mulberry' color. Danny Gresham, Vice -President of Construction & Design for Vicorp Restaurant, who is a franchiseor for this project, commented that in the franchise business, it is very difficult to allow for individual design. There are strict guidelines in the corporate office of what designs and colors can be approved. Mr. Gresham has no problem with the motion to continue, but there will be discussion at the corporate office to determine if the colors were to be removed by the Board's motion, whether the project would be allowed to continue. Village Inn has 127 locations with the two colors with no problems of this sort, and the applicant has designed the architecture of the building to better fit in the Fort Collins community. Member Carpenter pointed out the precedence the Board has for changing a "corporate image" to make it better fit Fort Collins. Other franchises have been able to accommodate. She hoped to be able to come to an agreement with the applicant on the color issue. Member Colton agreed with the motion to continue. He felt as if the orange and green combination is more powerful than we should have in the center. Member Colton felt you could remedy the problem by removing or changing color combinations, but was unsure of what exact changes should be made. Member Bernth asked of the Board to give the applicant a clear direction of what colors are wanted for the building. Member Colton agreed, but stated that he did not know the name of replacement colors. Member Gavaldon definitely wanted the "Mulberry" replaced with the "Putty', and the toning down of the other colors were part of the amendment. He believes the two other colors needed to be "toned down". He asked Member Carpenter to clarify what she was looking for when she made the amendment to the motion. Member Carpenter felt uncomfortable trying to design the project. Planner Shepard suggested the Board ask the applicant if enough direction has been given. Planning and Zoning Board IVlinutes • September 6, 1999 Page 5 of 6 • Rick Forester, Director of Architecture for Vicorp., asked the Board if the applicant eliminated the "Mulberry" color, would the Board approve the project as staff has recommended it. He had the concern that the issue could come up again and again because one member did not like a color. Member Carpenter asked if it was appropriate to answer the questions posed by Mr. Forester. Planner Shepard suggested restating the motion on the table and work through the motion. Member Carpenter stated that just taking away the "Mulberry" is not enough. All of the colors were too bright. All of them needed to be "toned down". The green and orange needed to be more subdued. Taking the "Mulberry' away as in the staff recommendation did not suffice alone. Member Gavaldon entertained amendments from other board members. Member Gavaldon supports the staff recommendation with the amendments from the other members. Member Meyer agreed with Member Carpenter's concerns with the color, but also understands the issue of the corporate image. She was not as fond of the amendment, because it is not whether she likes the colors or not, she did not feel it was her position to decide that or change the corporate image. • Member Colton's biggest issue was the orange and green; the "Mulberry' was secondary in his opinion. Member Craig's biggest concern was there are pad sites still to be developed in the shopping center. If this use of color is allowed, the next building could come in even brighter. She would support the amendment. Member Bernth asked the applicant to bring up the color palate. He felt there was a conflicting color representation on different examples. Member Bernth wanted the "Mulberry" out of the proposal, but he would like the "Burnt Sienna" to look more closely to the color rendering, not the available photographs. He was okay with the "Prussian" green. If the "Burnt Sienna" was toned down to match the rendering, that would be okay with him. Mr. Forester stated that the original color was "Pumpkin", which was a lot brighter. The applicant has since come up with the "Burnt Sienna". The photograph shown and the color copies are not of the highest quality. Mr. Forester distributed another photograph of the colors. The photograph and the color chart will be included for the record. Deputy Attorney Paul Eckman stated based on the motion, the applicant could bring back additional colors for comparison to the colors shown now if they choose to do so. . Member Colton asked Member Gavaldon to restate the motion. Member Gavaldon restated the motion. Planning and Zonin, ,.card Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 6 of 6 The motion was approved 6-0. Other Business: Bob Blanchard made three announcements. (1) We will be holding the audio conferences at 3:00 p.m. in 281 North College Conference Rooms on the days advertised on the handout. (2) The developer forum is to be held on September 15, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. This is hosted by the City Manager. (3) On September 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board will be meeting with the Council Growth Management Committee in the main conference room at 281 North College Ave as close to 5:00 p.m. as possible. Member Colton had a preliminary list identifying the best way for the board to communicate with the Growth Management Committee on specific issues within the Planning Department and in Development Review. This list was discussed with Bob Blanchard and the other Board members. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.