Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/19/1990. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman. Member Laurie O'Dell was absent. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Peter Barnes, Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda consisted of Item 1, the Minutes of the October 1, 1990 meeting. The Discussion Agenda consisted of: Item 2, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code, "Zoning, Annexation, Development of Land", Case #33-90; Item 3, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code, "Zoning, Annexation, Development of Land," Case #43-90;Item 4, Dollar Rent-A-Car PUD, Preliminary, Case #42-90; Item 5, Foothills Auto Plaza PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #52-85B, and; Moreland PUD, Amended Final, Case #14-83D. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider the tabling of the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plans Rezonings from the December 17, 1990 meeting to the regular February meeting. . Member Strom moved to approve Item 1 of the Consent Agenda. Member Walker seconded to motion. The motion passed 6-0. Member Carroll moved to table the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plans Rezonings to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE - #33-90 Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, gave a description of the proposed amendment. He stated the comprehensive Sign Code was adopted in 1971 as an element of the City Zoning code. In its original form it did not allow off -premise signs. The Council amended the Code in 1979 to allow off -premise signs due to case law which brought into doubt the legality of prohibiting the off -premise sign industry from operating in Fort Collins. The amended Code allowed off -premise signs, with the only requirement for such signs being that they comply with the same regulations pertaining to on -premise sings. The code amendment also provided for a 5 year amortization period for all existing off -premise signs which did not comply with the regulations pertaining to size, height and location. These signs had to be removed by 1984. However, the sign companies which own the non -conforming billboards did not remove them, and instead filed suit against the City claiming that if the City wanted the signs down then Federal and State laws required the City to pay compensation. A From 1979, when off -premise signs were first permitted, most of the signs were erected by developers and advertised their various residential subdivisions. Then in 1985,sign companies began to erect signs and they more closely resembled the typical billboard by displaying changeable -copy commercial messages. Most of the developer signs have been removed and replaced with the more traditional billboard. These off -premise signs generally are removed only when the property develops and it becomes necessary to erect a permanent on -premise sign for the new development. Only about 10 permits a year are issued for new off -premise signs, but existing ones do not come down at a comparable rate. In January 1985, there were only 30 off -premise signs. That number has increased to 90 such signs in existence today. Three options have been developed by staff, working with citizens and the sign industry. Options A and B have the support of the off -premise sign industry, while Option C is supported by the Development Services staff. Option C is the same option presented to City Council on August 7, 1990. He stated the three options were as follows: Option A -Stricter Design and Locational Requirements: This amends the current section which allows off -premise signs. The proposal would continue to allow off -premise signs but they would be subject to stricter regulations such as: a) A minimum setback of fifteen feet from the street right-of-way line would be required for any sign which does not exceed fifty-five square feet per face. The current code allows a minimum setback of zero feet in many cases, irrespective of size. b) The maximum size allowed would be fifty-five square feet per face when setback between 15 feet and 29 feet from the right-of- way line, and seventy-eight square feet per face when the sign is setback 30 feet or more. The current code allows a maximum size of one hundred twenty square feet per face. c) The maximum height for off -premise signs would be 15 feet above grade. The current code allows a maximum height of 24 feet above grade. d) A spacing requirement of 300 ft.t on both sides of an off -premise sign, measured on one side of the street, would be established. The current code requires a 30 foot separation. e) No sign face can remain blank for more than 60 consecutive days. The current code is silent on this issue. f) No off -premise sign can contain more than two sign faces. The current code does not limit the number of sign faces. Option B -Cap and Replacement, One Year Moratorium: This option would amend the code by establishing a Cap and Replacement requirement which would go into effect at the end of a one year moratorium on the construction of new off - premise signs. It would then limit the maximum number of off -premise signs which can be in place at any one time to the number which exists at the end of one year and, at that time, it would allow a one -for -one replacement wherein a new off -premise sign could be constructed in the city when an existing one is removed. Option C -Prohibit New Off -Premise Signs: This option would amend the Code by prohibiting the construction of new off -premise signs within the city, except ideological and election signs. Existing signs would be "grandfathered," primarily because of federal regulations which require compensation to be paid to the owner of any such signs which exist within 660 feet of a federal aid highway. 2 Mr. Barnes added that in Section 1, a definition is added for 'off -premise sign" to the definition section of the Zoning Code. As proposed, the term would refer to any sign or billboard located off -premise, including ideological signs. In Section 2, the current section of the Sign Code which lists the types of prohibited signs would be amended. The proposal adds off -premise signs to the list of prohibited signs, with the exception of off -premise ideological and election signs and off -premise signs constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. The amendment would result in the prohibition of all future off -premise, commercial billboards. Ideological and election are usually off -premise in nature and are protected by the First Amendment to a higher degree than signs advertising commercial messages. Mr. Barnes stated that since existing commercial off -premise signs cannot be amortized when within 660 feet of a federal aid highway, they should be "grandfathered " He stated there are approximately ninety off -premise commercial signs within the city. Nine of those signs are more than 660 feet from a federal aid highway and amortization could be applied to them. Staff is recommending that they also be "grandfathered." Staff does not think that the removal of the few signs that would be left would have any noticeable impact on the streetscape of Fort Collins. Mr. Barnes continued by stating that Section 3 deletes the present code section 29-563 (b) which established an amortization period for the removal of non -conforming off -premise signs. Since all non -conforming off -premise signs are within this distance, this section should be repelled. Also deleted is section 29-563 (e) which provided for the original six year amortization provision adopted with the sign code in 1971. He stated that in Section 4, the present code required that any non -conforming sign which was . located on property annexed to the city must be removed or brought into compliance within five years after the date of annexation. The proposed amendment exempts any off -premise sign which is within 660 feet of a federal aid highway from having to comps: with this amortization schedule. Section 5 repeals the current provision which allowed all off -premise signs. Mr. Barnes stated that staff had concerns that centered primarily around three issues: the prominence of newly constructed billboards (appearance and location), the increasing numbers of such signs, and their aesthetic impact on the community. Option A will improve the appearance of new off -premise signs. The City has received considerable negative feedback about the number of recently constructed three -sided signs. This option would limit the number of sign faces to two. The 300 foot spacing requirement is certainly one of the most significant elements of this option. However, despite the many strengths of Option A, its major weakness is that the number of signs will increase over time. He stated that Option B addressed concerns relative to the appearance and location of new off - premise signs as found in Option A. The one -for -one replacement which would go into effect after the one year moratorium would guarantee that the number of off -premise signs in the community would not increase, other than through annexation of properties which already contain such signs. Most of the replacement signs, like the new signs allowed in Option A, would probably be built along the main corridors and gateways of the City. Mr. Barnes stated that Option C does not deal with stricter regulations for new signs. Its focus is entirely on prohibiting new off -premise commercial signs. Under this option, the number of existing signs would decrease over time as lots containing such signs are developed. There have • been some concerns expressed about this option by the regulated sign industry and some 3 r Q members of the business community. The sign industry is concerned that this proposal would eventually put them out of business since they would not be able to replace signs which might be removed by development or lost leases. Members of the business community and the sign industry have expressed that off -premise advertising is a very important outlet for small businesses to use in their advertising strategies because it gives them good exposure at an affordable price. Mr. Barnes stated that staff recommended approval of Option C to City Council. Although the sign code was very controversial, it is now widely accepted as being one of the most successful programs ever undertaken by the city in terms of its impact on the aesthetic character of the community. There has been, however, growing sentiment by citizens that the sign ordinance is out-of-date and has too many loopholes that allow the proliferation of billboards along most commercial streets in Fort Collins. He stated that staff believed that each of the options has strengths as well as weaknesses as outlined in the preceding analysis, but that Option C in the staff's judgement, is the best way to deal with the concerns raised and preserve the objective of the Code which is to enhance the streetscape of the city. Alan Cunningham, 443 Weld County Road 48 in Berthoud, stated he was on the Board of the Loveland Environmental Committee, chair of the Visual Pollution Sub -committee, an ad -hoc member of Loveland Beautification committee, worked with the Loveland staff to enforce and continue the Loveland Sign Code, and was a member of Scenic American and Scenic Colorado. He stated he was in favor of banning all off -premise signs. He read a letter that he had sent to City Council opposing billboards. Winette Payne, 1000 W. Laurel, stated she was opposed to billboards and believed that the Board should consider Option C. Jackie O'Hara, 2149 Romney, has been in advertising marketing for ten years. She stated that in her business, she recommended to her clients billboards as advertising because it was :ost effective and that it worked. She urged the Board to consider Option B. Emily Smith, Vice -President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, concurred with sta£Ps recommendation of Option C. Carol DiCecco, 3680 South Mason and owner of the Balloon Family business, was opposed to staff recommendation of Option C. She stated that the biggest return for her money in her business was through billboard advertising. John Walker, 416 W. Oak, stated that Fort Collins was the only major city in Latimer County that allowed off -premise signage. He believed that signs should not be "grandfathered" and that all future billboards should be banned. Maureen Morris, 2906 Bluegrass Drive, believed that billboard advertising was effective for businesses and more cost effective than other advertising. She believed that it would be a viable option for Fort Collins' businesses to adopt Option B. Nancy Frazier, 3630 Woodridge and owner of Frazier Advertising and Publication, believed the Board should consider Option B. She stated that Option B would lessen the impact of the billboards on the community with the cap and replacement. Ed Robert, 1923 Linden Ridge, stated he was concerned about the boundary limits for these signs with the city's unusual city limits. He stated that he was not in favor of the proliferation 4 . of billboards throughout Fort Collins and felt that whatever the City adopts should also be adopted by the County for signs within the Urban Growth Area. Al Anderson, American Outdoor Advertising, stated that the definition of "billboard" should be redefined. He stated that the proposed options should be reviewed again and staff should listen to the needs of the advertising businesses and adapt the options accordingly. He is not in favor of Option C. Gary Young, 2824 E. Harmony and owner of Outdoor Promotions, believed there could be compromise among the concerns of the citizens and still provide a medium for citizens that choose to advertise. He believed that off -premise signs should not be totally banned but work with the sign regulations. Member Walker asked about grandfathering of the code. Mr. Eckman responded that the city has stated that all off -premise signs shall be prohibited with certain exceptions. If the Highway Beautification Act is amended so that amortization is permitted, the code would have to be changed. Member Cottier asked which proposed options would apply to the existing signs. Mr. Barnes replied that off -premise signs change faces every 30 days. The city code had an amortization provision which states that signs would have to comply with the stricter requirements. Under the Highway Beautification Act, that type of provision would be invalid. This holds for existing signs, meaning that the City cannot require them to be brought into . compliance with stricter regulations. Member Cottier asked if taxes were collected from the billboards or from the property owners. 0 Mr. Barnes stated that only sales tax is collected on building permits. Member Walker moved to recommend to City Council adoption of Option C to prohibit new off - premise signs. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that the city had a history of a stringent sign code but the result has been, as a community, something to be proud of and replicated in other cities. He believed that the city had supported the fact that there was a strong feeling for keeping our streetscapes within reason. Proposed Option C would continue as the community feeling and that it would promote the community's value. Member Carroll commented that he appreciated the comments from the small business owners. He stated he did see a difference between off -premise and on -premise signs and that advertising businesses would be destroyed because there will still be on -premise signs allowed. He stated Options A and B do not address how to eliminate the distasteful "signs" and keep the nice ones. He stated he would support Option C. Member Strom commented that he did not believe that this was a major consideration in terms of supporting small businesses. He added that rarely, if ever, has anyone spoken to him about an issue where their personal ox was not being gored in one way or another. In terms of this issue, people have asked him as a Board member why something cannot be done about the off - premise signs in Fort Collins. 5 Member Cottier commented that the billboards are not used that much by small businesses as opposed to large businesses. It is the Board's policy to try and not consider economic issues in making their decisions. It is the Board's desire to improve the aesthetic appearance in Fort Collins. Chairman Klataske commented that if this passes tonight, he hopes City Council will take that recommendation and work with the county on the sign issue. He believed that this would not affect the small businesses but a moratorium as in Option B would affect them. The motion to approve passed 6-0. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE. "ZONING. ANNEXATION, AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND." -Case #43-90 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, stated that this was a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to establish regulations pertaining to vehicle -mounted signs. He stated that there are a number of businesses in the city which display signs on vehicles or trailers where the primary purpose appears to be for sign display. In some cases, these signs are the only signs on the property advertising the business. In other instances these signs are in addition to permanent signage advertising the business, and in still other instances the sign is an off - premise sign in that it advertises a product or service which is located somewhere else than upon the lot where the sign is displayed. In all cases though, the use of such signs is not in keeping with the intent of the sign code which is to create orderly signage along the streets of the city. These proposed regulations attempt to control vehicle -mounted signs in a manner which closes the loophole. He added that this proposed ordinance is intended to address concerns primarily related to signs which are placed on the deck of a trailer or in the back of a pickup. Mr. Barnes stated that in Section 1, a definition is added for "vehicle -mounted sign" to the definition section of the Zoning Code. As proposed, the term would refer to any signage placed on or in a vehicle as well as any signage which is placed on any object which in turn is placed in or attached to a vehicle. The amendment also defines the meaning of the term "vehicle." Member Carroll moved to recommend adoption of staff recommendation regarding vehicle - mounted signs. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that this was closing a loophole that should have been closed a long time ago. He believed there was a safety issue here as well as an issue of sign clutter. The motion was approved 6-0. DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR PUD -PRELIMINARY -CASE #42-90 Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project stating that the signage on the site will consist of one wall -mounted sign board o the front of the building, and a double face, pole mounted sign 18 feet high with each face being 3' X 8'. The pole is existing and is located just to the left of the front entry approximately 5 feet out from the building. He stated that staff recommended approval with two staff conditions: 1) The applicant provide a 5 foot wide planting area adjacent to the existing asphalt walkway between the curb and the property line on both sides of the existing 35 foot main driveway curb cut. A minimum of three deciduous 51 • trees (either shade or ornamental) and a mix of deciduous and evergreen shrubs with landscape mulches as understory should be included in these areas. These landscape improvements must be installed during the spring, 1991 planting season, and; 2) the applicant must be responsible for cutting and removing the existing concrete ramp at the second drive, backfilling with base course and pouring asphalt to match existing, and constructing new curb and gutter to match existing curb and gutter. The timing for construction of these improvements will be determined at the time of final approval. Member Strom asked if it was common to award energy conservation points to existing buildings. Mr. Olt replied that it was common for points to be awarded. Chairman Klataske asked why signage would be pole mounted versus monument and what would be the height. Mr. Olt replied that pole mounted signage would be more appropriate because the pole already exists and it is approximately 3 lots back from College. The adjacent building would block the view of a monument sign. Member Walker asked if the sign could be located in a different place or was it just more convenient to locate it at the proposed place because there is an existing pole. Mr. Olt stated that this was not really considered to place the sign elsewhere. He stated there was a limited area to where the sign could have gone and the pole was already in place. Member Walker asked how the 18 foot high sign comes within the sign code. Mr. Olt replied that 18 feet is allowable because of the setback. Member Strom asked if the Board has the authority over the sign since it is consistent with a use -by -right. Mr. Peterson replied that he did not believe the Board had that authority. Member Strom stated that if the Board approved a PUD, that PUD would take precedent over other aspects of development on the site. Mr. Peterson stated that this PUD was only a request for auto sales, not for a rental car use. Mr. Olt stated that the signage would advertise only the rental car aspect of the request. Mr. Peterson stated that the LDGS, Item 46, All Development Criteria, deals with signs. Mr. Barnes stated that a permit has been issued for the Dollar Rent-A-Car sign at the 18 foot height under the use -by -right. Member Carroll asked if the proposed use would be for renting cars and selling cars but before it was used just for renting cars. Mr. Olt stated that it would be for rental and selling and previously was just for car rental. Dan Ressue, Manager of Dollar Rent-A-Car, stated that they were only renting the property and believed that they shouldn't remove the existing concrete drive when they do not own the property. He added that staff recommended sidewalk striping of 4' -5' and moveable planters. This would not permanently change the property as to not agree with the codes and prevent further improvements later. Chairman Klataske asked if the owner has agreed to these conditions requested by the renter. Mr. Olt replied that there has been no contact with the property owner, but he was aware of the requests and conditions by the applicant. Member Cottier asked what was the difference between the proposed landscaping and movable planters and staffs requests. Mr. Olt stated that timberform planters on top of asphalt could damage the asphalt as originally proposed by the applicant. The applicant then made the proposal of moveable planters which could be attractive, although the moveable planters do not serve the purpose of blocking off the second drive. Member Strom asked if the City had a policy on gravel parking lots. Mr. Barnes stated that the City's parking ordnance required that parking lots be hard surface. These requirements applied to use -by -right. This proposed parking area was totally behind the building and not visible from a public right-of-way and is under the control of the employees. Member Strom asked if there was a wheel stop or curb planned between the vehicle display area and the walkway. Mr. Olt replied that curb stops are required to maintain a 4 foot walkway. Member Cottier moved to approved Dollar Rent-A-Car Preliminary without the condition stated by staff which would allow the applicant to propose moveable planters. The motion failed due to lack of a second to the motion. Member Strom moved to approve Dollar Rent-A-Car Preliminary with the two staff conditions. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that the landscape condition was important because the Board would be backing away from their responsibility under the LDGS to approve a PUD that doesn't come up to the standards being set by the adjacent property owners. He added that the curb cut will eventually have to be closed. Member Carroll commented that he would support the motion for the same reasons as Member Strom. Member Walker commented that, given the current frontage of the property, criteria would have to be met. Member Cottier commented that she would support the motion. Chairman Klataske commented that he had concerns with the sign but he would support the motion. 8 a 11 0 The motion passed 6-0. FOOTHILLS AUTO PLAZA PUD -PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #52-8513 Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project and recommended approval. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, briefly discussed the proposed curb cuts, location of the project, access driveway, sidewalks, and addition of landscaping. Mr.Shepard stated that the variance request was to gain primary access off of College Avenue since the property was landlocked and has no other access. Member Cottier asked what center this was a part of. Mr. Shepard replied that this was a community regional shopping center. Member Cottier asked if points were given to any proposed development, located on South College Avenue between Prospect and Harmony Road. Mr. Shepard responded yes. Chairman Klataske asked how far back from College Avenue can a vehicle be displayed. Mr. Shepard replied 22 feet or 2' to 4' from the existing curb to bumper. He stated the • breakdown of the 22 feet was 7 feet of sidewalk, 14 feet of landscaping, and a 2 foot strip for vehicle overhang. Member Cottier asked how much landscaping would be added on the proposal. i Mr. Shepard stated 14 feet. Chairman Klataske asked if there would be any temporary ramps. Mr. Shepard replied that he would specifically address the display of vehicles on elevated, temporary or permanent, ramps on the final site plan. Chairman Klataske asked what means of enforcement would there be should vehicles be parked in the landscaped areas. Mr. Shepard replied that the primary means of enforcement would be the holding of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building addition. Secondly would be through the City Attorney's office for a 30 day notice of violation at the end of which would be a 10-15 day grace period. Mr. Eckman stated that if there was a code violation, a 30 day notice would not be necessary. A ticket could be written in the Municipal Court for the violation. Every day would be a separate violation, no matter what car was parked there. Member Strom asked for clarification of the landscaping. E Mr. Shepard stated that the Board did not have the most current landscape plan. He added that there would be four trees on the frontage mixed with ornamental trees and shrubs. Member Strom asked why the landscaping area was not consistent with the Moreland PUD. Mr. Shepard replied that the amount of landscaping for Foothills Auto Plaza would exceed the amount of landscaping for Moreland PUD by about six inches. The City right-of-way would be vacated back to the property owner, which was currently a frontage road that would be moved to the west. Member Cottier asked if the Moreland amendment was being proposed as a functional part of the Foothills Auto Plaza PUD. Mr. Shepard stated that these two items need to be kept separate. It was at City staff's request that the Moreland PUD be submitted because there were implications to Moreland PUD with the Foothills Auto Plaza PUD submittal. Member Strom stated he had concerns with the landscaping differences between the two proposals. Chairman Klataske asked about the internal lighting, height, light standards, and if the lights are internally direct. Mr. Shepard stated that there will be no change to what is existing. Member Walker asked if the rationale of the landscaping was to have as much frontage per auto as possible and why was the island located where it was. Mr. Rutherford stated that there currently was a fire hydrant there and has a curb island around it. He stated that the two proposal landscape plans are of different scales so Moreland appears to have more landscaping. Member Cottier moved to approve Foothills Auto Plaza PUD Preliminary with the condition that additional landscaping be added to break up a continuous parking of cars in the two long areas bordering College Avenue. Member Strom suggested that the condition should be directed to the existing approved Moreland PUD landscape plan for guidance as to the landscaping break up along the frontage road. Member Cottier revised the motion to make specific reference to landscaping islands similar to the existing Moreland PUD directly to the south. Member Carroll seconded the motion. He stated it was appropriate to approve the preliminary with the conditions to allow the applicant to come back and satisfy the conditions which the Board was placing on final. He stated the PUD itself was satisfactory. Chairman Klataske asked if the motion included the variance. Member Cottier replied yes, the motion included the variance request. Member Carroll replied yes to the second. 10 . Member Strom asked what would happen to a proposal of this type if the variance was not granted. Mr. Shepard replied that by definition, the project would be denied because it would not satisfy the LDGS absolute criteria of the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial point chart. Member Cottier revised her motion to include the notation that there would be no temporary raised display ramps. Member Carroll concurred as a second. The motion to approve passed 6-0. MORELAND PUD -AMENDED FINAL - #14-83D Mr. Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Mr. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, stated that the applicant wished to withdraw the Moreland PUD from consideration. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peterson stated that there would be a work session with City Council on December 11 to discuss the Harmony Corridor Plan. is The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 0 11 COLNTR,)�l ............ ..... WILLCX ...... q: .... .. ..... ....... :::::::, * ... . .......... i. .. r I .......... ..... ...... ........... ... 1 )9 ...... :. � :,e . ....... w LAPCF"� ..... .. ::::::.*.RICHMOND ASSOCIATES OFFICE ,,_I HIG~Y 14 203-W. MULBERRY w . ..... :FORT:: :: : ............ . r: .......... .... .......... ...... �-:.41 CAMPUS WEST �4:� i;:::: TEXACO N: 66LLiN 7. ........ ........ .... : . .......... PROSPECT PARK EAST (Vipont) :j ... . ........... w 1: BURNS RANCH ... SOUTH GLEN 3rd FOOTH wo r R lv.Z 421 i 0 LAURIE SUBDIVISION::: FAY-1-M RD ....... City Limits: 1.1.90 . ......... i..........