HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTEELE'S MARKET AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 3RD FILING - FINAL - 54-87E - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILr
Li
•
, ,(� Architecture Construction
1 1/Ail J ��d ° ^f
I�' _ : aC E -ospect .. Coilirs CO 80522 3021
.sir 3ivo.Ste 205•Lou!svule.C0 80027• _ —5
MEMINNEMEMMII '2 ^ic occ 3orgs.CO 80001-0182• 710' b33 2.713
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
STEELES MARKET SIGNAGE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE
September 26, 1991
1. Action being appealed: Conditions of the Planning and Zoning Board approval of
the Administrative Change to Nash Finch/Steeles Market at Harmony Market, Filing
Three, Final P.U.D., #54-87E.
2. Date of the Board Action: Monday, September 23, 1991.
3. Appellant: Nash Finch Company and Steeles Market
c/o Greg Fisher
The Neenan Company
2290 E. Prospect Rd.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
(303) 493-8747
Applicant for Final P.U.D. and Administrative Change and Project
Architect
4. Grounds for Appeal: It is the opinion of the appellant that the Planning and Zoning
Board made the following errors:
• Sec. 2-48(1) Abuse of discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without
the support of competent evidence in the record;
• Sec. 2-48(3)d. The Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant.
In support of Sec. 2-48(1), the appellant feels that the Board had negative feelings toward
tenant signage proposed due to the fact that two of the signs "Travel" and"Cleaners" did not
state the business names, whereas the 3rd sign, "Mailboxes, Etc." did. It was explained by
the appellant that it was the desire of the applicants to keep the signage small and in scale
with the building, and that Mailboxes, Etc.was a national franchise which requires their full
name to be included, whereas Ambassador Travel and Country Clean Cleaners were local
businesses without such requirements. The Board then incorrectly deduced, without the
support of evidence, that because these businesses did not need to have the full name
indicated in their signage, that signage was not necessary or important to those tenants.
• i t
It was presented by Burt Steele, owner of Steeles Market, that the primary purpose of the
tenant signage was to make potential customers aware of the services offered within this
grocery facility which are not normally offered within grocery stores.
In support of Sec. 2-48(3)d, the appellant's opinion is that the Board failed to receive all
relevant evidence explaining the reasons against moving the tenant signage from the lower
fascia, onto the building beneath the fascia.
The appellant presented that this signage would not be visible due to the shadow created
by the fascia overhang (5') and due to the brick columns spaced every 20 feet in front of the
wall. Also, a large portion of the wall location recommended by staff is constructed of
storefront windows, which cause technical and aesthetic difficulties in placing the proposed
signage over the glazing. The only alternative to this approach would be to convert the
channel letters to neon and place them behind the windows. The applicant presented that
this approach was considered less attractive and less effective.
ti
The appellant further presented that the planning staff report had indicated that they found
the three non-food businesses to be equivalent to the in-line retail that would be typically s �'c'
found in the Harmony Market Center. The appellant added that it would be typical of
other in-line retail facilities throughout Fort Collins and then requested that as such it be
treated the same.
Furthermore it was presented that the retail space preliminary approved to be adjacent to
the west side of Steeles would very likely develop with its front wall flush with the front of
Steeles. This space would very likely have a fascia/overhang similar to Steeles in order to
cover the door openings and to continue the character established within Harmony Market. v
It is also very likely that these tenants will request signage to be located on the fascia similar <('',0
to retail developments throughout Fort Collins and elsewhere. Therefore what the applicant
is proposing would be consistent with current and future development within Harmony
Market.
The applicants also mentioned that signage as proposed was felt tasteful in scale and
locations, and already diminished in its exposure to Harmony Road. This was due to the ;;A.o
fact that the building sits approximately 600 feet from Harmony Road and will be buffered
by the extensive landscaping and berming put in place to fulfill the Harmony Corridor Policy
Requirements. In addition the future retail pads proposed along Harmony Road will block
exposure of the signage, in question as they develop.
It was also explained that the tenant signage placed on the building will be the only
opportunity for the tenant services to be identified as the monument signage on the corner
of Harmony and Lemay will only display Steeles Market and Harmony Market.