Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTEELE'S MARKET AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 3RD FILING - FINAL - 54-87E - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (2) • AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 DATE: November 5, 1991 • FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard SUBJECT: Appeal of the September 23, 1991 Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving, With Conditions, the Request for Administrative Change to Nash Finch/Steele's Market at Harmony Market, Filing Three, Final P.U.D. The Appeal Pertains Only to a Portion of Condition Number Three. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and, after consideration, uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Also, the Council may remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board for a new hearing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 23, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve, with three conditions, the request for an administrative change to Nash Finch/Steele' s Market at Harmony Market, Filing Three, Final P.U.D. The appeal relates only to the locational aspect of condition number three of the Planning and Zoning Board's final decision. Condition number three reads as follows: "The three signs on the lower fascia be lowered off the fascia and be of blue color to carry the established signage theme across all three anchors and to promote consistency. " The project was a referral of an administrative change to the Planning and Zoning Board. The applicant's request was to add wall signage to the north elevation of Nash Finch/Steele's Market over the allowable amount approved on the original P.U.D. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the request subject to three conditions. Conditions number one and two were agreed to by the applicant. The third condition relates to the proposed location of three, individual lettered signs advertising separate and distinct tenants within the structure. The appeal takes issue with the locational aspect of the condition number three, not the color aspect. It is the appellant's desire to place three, individual -lettered, wall signs upon the lower fascia of the north elevation. SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS: The appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record, and that the Board failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows: • Did the board fail to conduct a fair hearing by: Abusing its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record? DATE: November 5, 1991 0 -2- ' ITEM NUMBER: 25 Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the • appellant? The attached background memorandum contains the appellant's specific allegations and a summary of the public record. • • DevelopOnt Services • Planning Department lik111111.111 City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DT: October 21, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Cou it Members TH: Greg Byrne, D. ctor of Development Services Tom Peters 7 ,Dirictor of Planning FM: Ted Shepard, Project Planner RE: Background Information, Appellant ' s Allegations, and Staff Response to Appeal of the Decision on Nash Finch/Steele ' s Market Approval, With Conditions, of the Administrative Change to Add Signage to the North Elevation of Steele' s Market at Harmony Market P.U. D. 1. Administrative Change Request: The following table summarizes the approved signage in addition to the appellant's original administrative change request. (Note: all signage referenced is individual letter style. There are no cabinet signs approved or proposed within this P.U. D. ) Approved Signage "STEELE 'S MARKET" 4 feet high On Top Fascia Requested Signage "PHARMACY" 3 feet high On Top Fascia "BAKERY & DELI" 3 feet high Requested Signage "MAIL BOXES ETC" 20 inches high On Lower Fascia "TRAVEL" 20 inches high "CLEANERS" 20 inches high 2 . Three Conditions of Approval by Planning and Zoning Board: The Planning and Zoning Board approved the administrative change request subject to three conditions: A. "PHARMACY" and "BAKERY & DELI" be reduced in height from three feet to two feet so it is obvious that these two signs represent secondary and subordinate signage. B. All signs on the top fascia be of the same letter style with "outline" white, and muted red-brown interior illumination for consistency. 281 North College Avenue • ftO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0380 • (303) 221-h7 30 i 4 C. The three signs on the lower fascia be lowered off the fascia and be of blue color to carry the established signage theme across all three anchors and to promote consistency. The applicant has agreed to comply with conditions number one and two. Further, the applicant has agreed to that portion of condition number three that the lower signs be blue in color. The applicant is appealing only that portion of condition number three that requires that the three signs be lowered off the lower fascia of the north elevation. 3 . Code Basis for the Appeal : The basis for the appeal is found in Section 2-48 (1) and Section 2-48 (3) d of the City Code. The full text of these code sections are as follows: Section 2-48 (1) : "That the board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record; " Section 2-48 (3) d: "That the board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. " 4 . Summary of the Appellant 's Allegations and Staff Response: A. The appellant claims that the board abused is discretion and was arbitrary and made a decision without the support of competent evidence in the record (Section 2-48 (1) ) in that the board' s discussion centered on the generic aspect of two requested signs: "TRAVEL" and "CLEANERS" . The board incorrectly deduced, without the support of evidence, that because these two firms did not desire to have their full names (Ambassador Travel and Country Cleaners) that signage on the lower fascia was not necessary or important to those tenants. The evidence presented was that these two signs, admittedly generic in character, were indeed considered by Mr. Bert Steele (Steele' s Market) in his statement to the board, to be very necessary and important to these two businesses. Staff Response: The board considered the statements of Mr. Bert Steele, in addition to other evidence, and concluded that the proposed signage should be lowered off the lower fascia. The deliberations and findings of the board were not an abuse of discretion or without support of competent evidence in the record. B. The appellant claims that the board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant (2-48 (3) d) . The applicant stated that the proposed signage would be consistent with future in-line retail within the Harmony Market Shopping Center and with typical shopping centers within Fort Collins. • ! The applicant also stated that lowering the proposed signage off the lower fascia would result in technical and aesthetic difficulties in that placing signage on store front windows, or behind brick columns, or under a five foot overhang is less attractive and less effective. Finally, the applicant stated that the proposed signage would have minimum impact in that the building is setback from Harmony Road by 600 feet, and be potentially blocked by future retail pads approved on the Harmony Market Preliminary P.U.D. The applicant claims that this evidence was improperly received by the board. Staff Response: The board received the above referenced evidence and considered this evidence while conducting the deliberations and taking final action. 5. Scope of Council Consideration: The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows: Did the board fail to conduct a fair hearing by: 2-48 (1) : abusing its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record? 2-48 (3) d: improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant?