The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHARMONY SAFEWAY MARKETPLACE, LOT 6, FUEL FACILITY - PDP - 33-94F - LEGAL DOCS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILJAN-31-01 WED 01:60 PM FAX NO, P. 02 Mayor Ray Martinez. tend City Council Members January 31, 2001 Pag-c 4 I he Planning and Zoning .Board will continue to review signage in Plartned Unit Developments only to file extent that the location of flush wall signs relate to the architcCurai character of the associated tzuildings," 111 conclusion, the Applicant respectfully requests that Condition of Approval requiring the rcnwval of two sign, from tile convenience store be stricken because the Board improperly inleipreted and appliccl Section 3.8.7.(F.)(2) and Sections 3.5.3.(A) and (D)(1) as allowing it to clinlinale signs which are permissible under the Sign Code. The appeal filin,; fec of $100 is enclosed. Plcase contact our office if you have any C111CStions. Sincerely, NIARCII & �1LEY, P.C. By: Lilc LA 1,/<<l r E'nclosnrc APPI.ICANTS: (iAI.LUWAY, RO MERO & ASSOCIATES, nulhorizcd ivpresenta Live of S,11'cwtty, Inc. and S-13 Properties No. 22, Ltd. I ty; _ David Moore, Mayor Ray Martinez and City Council Members — January 31, 2001 Page 3 3.8.7.(E)(2) which says that, although the Board may look at appropriate placement of signs, it may not impose more restrictive regulations than the Sign Code, under which the amount of permitted signage is determined. Clearly, eliminating in their entirety two of the four signs permitted under the Sign Code results in a more restrictive regulation. (5) Even if the Board had been interested in the location of the signs, reliance on the cited sections for determining location would be misplaced because they contain no standards or are not applicable to signs. Absent any locational criteria, any decision of the Board would be arbitrary. (i) Section 3.8.7.(E)(2) is devoid of standards, requirements or criteria upon which to evaluate the location of signage. - (ii) Section 3.5.3.(A) defines the purpose of the standards applicable to certain buildings, but contains no standards applicable to either buildings or signs. Section 3.5.3.(D)(1) contains building design standards, which the Staff found the Project to be in compliance with, but contains no standards applicable to signs. (iii) The Staff, in its Staff Report and its presentation to the Board, relied on comparisons of sign and building square footage. There are no criteria or standards that would allow such calculations to be used for the evaluation of signs. (iv) The Staff, in its Staff Report and its presentation to the Board, repeatedly referred to the issue of "neighborhood compatibility". Again, this is not a standard under the Land Use Code or Sign Code for reviewing signage. In fact, it is clear that the City Council adopted the more restrictive Residential Neighborhood Sign District standards for the very purpose of identifying objective sign criteria to deal with neighborhood compatibility. See the following language from the Agenda Summary and Ordinance No. 141, 1992 that is quoted in the Staff Report: "In general, the concerns include the amount of signage allowed under the current Code, appearance, aesthetics, and compatibility with the neighborhood quality and character." "The proposed Sign Code changes are intended to reduce or eliminate opportunities for abuse of the existing Code which could result in signage which is incompatible with an adjoining residential neighborhood." "Under the proposed changes, the amount and design of signage will be regulated by the Sign Code through the addition of new requirements specifically prepared to address the issue of neighborhood character and compatibility." Mayor Ray Martinez and City Council Members January 31, 2001 Page 2 Summary of Arguments (1) The Sign Code allows all four of the signs proposed; (2) The Board's only authority is to review the location or placement of allowed signage; (3) The Board eliminated of two of the four signs and cited Section 3.8.7.(E)(2) and Sections 3.5.3.(A) and (D)(1) as justification; (4) The Board's elimination of two of the four signs violates Section 3.8.7.(E)(2); and (5) Even if the Board had been interested in the location of the signs, reliance on the cited sections for determining location would be misplaced because they contain no standards or are not applicable to signs. Explanation of Arguments (1) The Sign Code allows all four of the signs proposed The Residential Neighborhood Sign District regulations (the "Sign Code") regulate with specificity the amount and desien of signage allowed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District (e.g. square footage, lettering, height, length and illumination). The record indicates that the Project includes a total of four signs on the convenience store building, two on the east elevation and one each on the south and west elevations. Each sign is proposed to be thirty (30) square feet in size, for a total of one hundred twenty (120) square feet of flush wall signage, which amount is less than the permitted amount under Sign Code Section 3.8.7.(E)(13). Neither Staff or the Board alleged that the amount of signage exceeds the amount permitted by the Sign Code. (2) The Board's only authority is to review the location or placement of allowed signage. Sign Code Section 3.8.7.(E)(2) describes the authority reserved to the Board to review the location of signs in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, stating that the Board may impose locational requirements as a condition of approval, but "shall not impose more restrictive requirements or conditions than required under this Section." (3) The Board eliminated two of the four signs and cited Section 3.8.7.(E)(2) and Sections 3.5.3.(A) and (13)(1) as justification. It is obvious from the record that neither the Staff or the Board were interested in the location or placement of the south and west elevation signs. Instead, the Board adopted the Staff's recommendation to completely eliminate the two signs citing a failure to meet Section 3.8.7.(E)(2) and Sections 3.5.3.(A) and 3.5.3.(D)(1). (4) The Board's elimination of two of the four signs is a violation of Section 3.8.7.(E)(2). It is error for the Board to equate its right to review location of signs (i.e. where to place permitted signage) with a right to eliminate permitted signage entirely. Doing so is directly contrary to Section _ MARCH & LILEY, P.C. ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW LUCIA A. LILEY 110 E. OAK STREET J. BRADFORD MARCH FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80524-2880 ARTHUR E. MARCH (970) 482-4322 1908-1981 Fax (970) 482-5719 January 31, 2001 Honorable Ray Martinez Mayor City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado City Council Members City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado RE: Notice of Appeal Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council. Members: J' =FEB1j CITY CLERK VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA HAND DELIVERY This firm represents Galloway, Romero & Associates, the representative of Safeway Stores 46, Inc. and S-B Properties No. 22, Ltd., and the applicant for the Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Lot 6, Safeway Fuel Facility, P.D.P., #33-94F (the "Project'). On January 18, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board") considered the Project and upon the Staff s findings that all aspects of the Project, with the exception of certain signs, complied with applicable land use and general development standards, voted to approve the Project subject to a condition requiring the removal of two signs. Galloway, Romero & Associates (hereinafter the "Applicant') appeals the January 18, 2001 action of the Board imposing a condition upon the approval of the Project requiring the removal of the signs on the south and west elevations of the convenience store (the "Condition of Approval'). The Applicant is a party -in -interest with standing to file this appeal as the applicant for approval of the Project who appeared before the Board on January 18, 2001. The Applicant is located at 5350 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111. The telephone number is 303/770-8884. As grounds for its appeal, the Applicant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter [Sec. 2-48(b)(1), City Code] in eliminating signs with the Condition of Approval. In support of its allegations, the Applicant presents the following: 7 a