Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLITTLE CAESARS PUD PRELIMINARY - 28 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 22, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 18, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Little Caesars PUD - Preliminary, #28-92; Item 3 - Potts PUD - Final, #6-92A; Item 4 - Best Buy PUD - Preliminary, #29-92; Item 5 -Hampshire Square II - Preliminary Subdivision, #31-92; Item 6 - Silverberg PUD - Overall Development Plan, #12-92; Item 7 - Prospect/Overland PUD -Final, #5-84D; Item 8 - Resolution PZ92-8 Vacation of Utility Easement (Continued until July 27, 1992); Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-9 Vacation of Temporary Easements for Access, Drainage and Utilities; Item 10 - Dakota Heights Subdivision - County Referral, #32-92; Item 11 - Woody Creek Subdivision - County Referral, #33-92; Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas; Item 13 - Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan, #52-82D; Item 14 - Southside Service Center PUD, Phase III - Site Plan Advisory Review, #52-82E; The following items continued until June 27, 1992 - Item 15 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan, #54- 8717; Item 16 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, #54-87G; Item 17 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, #21-92B; Item 18 - Stoneridge PUD, 1st Fling - Preliminary PUD, #21-92C; Item 19 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Fling - Preliminary PUD, #60-91D. Item 2, was pulled for discussion by the applicant. Item 4, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 5, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 6, was pulled by a member of the public. Member Klataske stated he had a conflict with item 7. Member Carroll moved for approval of items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 2 Member O'Dell moved for approval of item 7. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0, with Member Klataske not voting due to a conflict. LITTLE CAESARS PUD - PRELIMINARY. #28-92 Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the following conditions: The dedication for the entire width of future Mitchell Drive (including that portion of dedication needed from the neighboring property on the west side) between East Horsetooth Road and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 be completed, by plat or separate document, prior to Little Caesars P.U.D., Final being considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. 2. The applicant must incorporate brick material on the exterior of the Little Caesars Pizza Building to bring continuity to the existing office buildings to the east being part of the commercial office center that this use will functionally be a part of. 3. The signage stating "Pizza Pizza" on the west elevation of the building on the south and west corner must be eliminated from the west elevation of the building and overall signage package. Al Hauser, Architecture One stated they requested that the item be pulled from the consent agenda because of the final two conditions, both of which were unacceptable as written to the owner. They wanted to present their reasoning and the importance of the items as to why they need to be part of the project and have some ensuing discussion of those items. Mr. Hauser addressed the issue of the brick material. They are only seeking preliminary approval at this time and a final would be submitted sometime in the future. He stated that it would be a lower intensity use as far as signage is concerned as well as just a small monument sign being required outside the building. He identified the problems with the brick material on the outside of the building as follows: A great deal of money is always spent in franchising and trying to follow the suggested corporate image. It was common on pad sites to incorporate brick into a building. Their feelings were that in this situation, this particular site received preliminary approval with Continental Plaza PUD back in 1981. That approval has since expired in 1983 and they feel this property was being brought through as a separate development. He did not view this any different than other areas that he could think of along College Avenue, which are all projects that have continuity as far as vehicular circulation through their parking areas. Certainly there were no requirements that the masonry on one project be similar to the masonry used on another, just because they were P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 3 adjacent, which was the situation they had there. He felt that he should reiterate that they were different uses. 2. The orange brick that was used on Continental Plaza to the east was really not compatible with the remainder of the color scheme that has been suggested for this building. He spoke on signage and the proposed changes since the colored renderings were submitted. They had gone through two sessions with Steve Olt and Peter Barnes to come up with a scheme that meets the sign code in association with the restaurant use and they felt they had done that. They were under the maximum allowable sign area permitted by the sign code. The "Pizza Pizza" sign for what ever reason, seems to be of particular objection to staff. The "Pizza Pizza" sign is important to the owner in that it relates to the whole marketing philosophy of Little Caesars. "Pizza Pizza" is indicative of the fact that with Little Caesars you get two pizzas for one price, it is a part of their whole marketing scheme and to drop the signage off of the building was a rather important sign for the owner to drop. They did drop the Little Caesars roof sign on the east side which was discussed earlier because it did not have good visibility eastward down Horsetooth, it did more or less face the buildings in Continental Plaza to the east and they felt that was an acceptable compromise to the signage package at that time. He stated that they had also included on the PUD, per staff request, that there would be no painted window signage and that a neon window sign had been also eliminated. Their feeling was that to single out this one particular sign, when they are in compliance with the sign code as a whole, did not seem to be that tightly related to a land use issue and was an important marketing consideration for the owner to have that signage visible to the west. The owner felt that they have a location here zoned Highway Business, which was not adjacent to residential areas and with the total signage package being in agreement with the sign code, it was mystifying to them why the one sign had been singled out. He stated that the applicant felt that without significant justification, they were asking him to make an adjustment to the corporate image, which was a significant part of an expenditure in terms of obtaining a franchise and staying consistent with the sign ordinance the other requirements of the PUD. Member Carroll asked if the entire exterior was to be stucco. Mr. Hauser replied, stucco and then the three sided roof on the north end of the structure was a standing seam metal roof. Member Carroll asked if the middle strip was to be dark stucco. Mr. Hauser replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked if there was any similarity in the rust colored stucco as to the brick buildings to the east. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Hauser replied there was some, although it was more reddish in nature. Member Carroll asked if there was a dual objection that it did not follow the Little Caesars corporate image and the second was the expense. Mr. Hauser replied that he did not want to bring the expense up as an issue. The stucco material was not an inexpensive building material, brick is slightly more expensive than stucco. It would involve another trade that is not currently present on the job, so there would be some expense there. Member Carroll asked if the main objection was to the corporate image. Mr. Hauser replied yes, coupled with the fact that this was a different use than originally proposed on the preliminary submittal for Continental Plaza PUD and he thought that to a large extent, it was difficult to gain a lot of similarity between a 2,300 s.f., 16 foot high building and a 3 story, 40,000 to 60,000 s.f. building to the east just by the similar use of a brick material. Member Carroll asked if it was more a matter of aesthetics, that the corporate image did not carry brick and that the owner or the corporation felt that brick was not appropriate with this particular building. Mr. Hauser replied that was correct. The corporation did have a desire to see their franchises build their buildings as closely as they can to the corporate image that was being suggested. Member Carroll asked if the owner would object to a material like brick made of colored concrete and has brick outlines implanted into the brick, so it looks like brick, but it was not brick. Mr. Hauser replied that he would think so, he noticed tonight that it was written in the staff report as brick material. His discussions with Mr. Olt have been limited to just brick masonry, which he did not know what brick material might imply if it is not the use of brick masonry. Member Carroll asked if the only sign on the east would be the corporate logo and that it indicated that the "Pizza Pizza" sign was not illuminated. Mr. Hauser replied that it was a cut out letter like a quarter inch acrylic material. It was not an individual can that was backlit. Member Carroll asked if they were illuminated by ground lights. Mr. Hauser replied that typically by building mounted lights. Member Carroll asked if that was from the top shining down. Mr. Hauser replied yes. Member Carroll asked if the entire building was lit. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Hauser replied to some extent. Member Carroll asked if the Little Caesars lights on the front and on the west side were neon lights. Mr. Hauser replied they were can letters, and yes, they were internally illuminated. Member O'Dell stated she was familiar with the Little Caesars on the east side of town on Prospect and that was in an existing shopping center, which is made of brick, and it does not look anything like this building. Could he explain to her why there is a corporate standard that was important in this particular case, but was not in the case of the one in Park Central Shopping Center. Mr. Tony Fonte, owner of Little Caesars of Northern Colorado, replied that out of almost 4,000 stores nationwide and internationally too, 90% of them are inlaying stores like at Park Central Shopping Center where what ever the shopping center is made out of, it is just a rented space that goes into 1200 to 1400 square feet. That was the reason there was no corporate image there outside of signage at Park Central. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member O'Dell asked about the possible use directly west of this on the corner of College and Horsetooth. Mr. Peterson replied that we were not aware of anything at the present time that could come in on that corner, but the odds were some sort of commercial/office activity. Member O'Dell added that most likely what ever use it would be would eventually cover up in some ways, the "Pizza Pizza" sign from view on College. Mr. Peterson replied that it was a good possibility that a portion of the sign would be obscured by a building at some point. Member O'Dell asked Peter Barns about the sign code and how this conforms or does not conform to the sign code. Mr. Barnes replied that they had calculated the sign allowance for this property as being 328 square feet. The proposal that was submitted, minus the sign on the east facia, was 323 square feet. The location of ail the signs comply with the sign code, as did the amount of signage. Member O'Dell asked if the numbers of square feet were based on your footage or front line on an arterial or building frontage or something like that. Did they get credit for just being on Horsetooth, or Horsetooth and College. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Barnes replied that the sign code allowed you to, on corner lots, to have signage allowance based on each street frontage. Member Cottier asked if the computation of square footage include the little man sign. Mr. Barnes replied yes, the diameter of the circle was counted. Member O'Dell asked if before they took off the Little Caesars sign on the east side, it was over the sign code allowance. Mr. Barnes replied that had not been involved in it that much, Dan Coldiron in their office did the calculations, he went over with him the final calculations. Mr. Olt replied that the original submittal had indicated about 356 square feet with the signage on the east facade and that was close. They had some disagreements about the size of the letters and the calculations. The deletion of the Little Caesars on the east side brought it into compliance. Member O'Dell asked if the "Pizza Pizza" sign was calculated by the letters or the entire piece behind it, what was the sign. Mr. Barnes replied that it was considered an individual letter sign and therefore, including the area enclosed by the smallest perimeter enclosing the letters of the sign. Member O'Dell asked that it would be the letters themselves, not the colored piece behind it. Mr. Barnes replied yes. Chairman Strom asked how was it that a use that has two access points, one off of Horsetooth Road and one off of Mitchell Drive. How did that qualify for getting 8 points as being on a non -arterial street. Mr. Olt replied that the fact that the primary access was considered to be off of Mitchell Drive. At sometime in the future when a median was constructed in Horsetooth and the City has determined that a median will occur in Horsetooth Road, the access point between the office buildings and Little Caesars would be a controlled access right -in right -out. The primary access was considered to be off of Mitchell Drive, not of East Horsetooth, therefore, it did not gain its primary access, as the point chart indicates, off of an arterial street. It's off of a local street, which Mitchell Drive is classified as. Chairman Strom asked how it was determined what was primary and what was secondary. Mr. Olt replied they have looked at this as the primary access would be off of Mitchell Drive because that would be a right -in from the south and a left -in from the north, so it would be a full access into the site. The access point directly off of East Horsetooth at the northeast corner would be limited at some point in time, therefore, the primary access is considered off of Mitchell Drive. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 7 Member Klataske asked how was it that giving points as part of a planned center and yet the applicants discussion talked about this as separate from the original PUD. Mr. Olt replied that as the applicant had indicated it was a different use than originally approved with the original master plan. This lot had been approved for a financial institution. However, functionally, if you were to look at the traffic circulation, the primary entrance is off of Mitchell Drive. It shares a common driveway between Little Caesars, the proposed future office space and the office buildings to the east. The drive will continue through to the south and east of these uses into that office facility. Functionally, it will be part of Continental Plaza. He thought the applicant's argument was the visual aspect. Member Strom asked if it was effectively being argued to the Board that they give it points for functional relationship but that they ignore the aesthetic relationship. Mr. Hauser replied that he had discussed that with Mr. Olt on the phone and they had come to the conclusion that they had 50% on the point criteria without the 4 points that were taken for the joint use. Some points were taken there because this development, as a development on its own, has a mixed use with the office building and restaurant being on the same site. His final comments to Mr. Olt were that if the inclusion of those points bothered him as being considered part of Continental Plaza to the east that they could be eliminated from the point chart. Member O'Dell moved for approval of Little Caesars PUD, Preliminary, with two conditions: 1. The first condition as outlined by staff concerning the dedication of the entire width of the future Mitchell Drive (including that portion of dedication needed from the neighboring property on the west side) between East Horsetooth Road and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 be completed, by plat or separate document, prior to Little Caesars PUD, Final being considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. 2. That the architecture of the building include some brick and that could be worked out with staff. They had some ideas of what would work and what would not work. She cited LDGS All -Development Criteria #2, "Is a development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the neighborhood, relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, and building height, identity and historic character, disposition and orientation of buildings on the lots and visual integrity. She thought because this functions as part of the center, she thought that it was important that it look like it was part of the center. The sign was fine, this was a highly commercial area and she thought the signs they had proposed with the elimination of the Little Caesars on the east side was appropriate on that location. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll stated he would support the motion. He also wanted to note that in support of the use of the brick material, it was not just the immediate site that incorporates brick, as one moves down Horsetooth to the east, one comes upon many office buildings built of brick, which is also the P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 8 neighborhood. The Square across the street was also brick. As far as the "Pizza Pizza" sign, he would support deleting the condition, for staffs benefit, this points out another area of the audit, the applicant was able to use the fact that he faces on two streets for sign frontage but then takes the sign frontage on Mitchell and moves it around to the north and west sides of the buildings, which was a concern to him. He thought obviously the applicant was proceeding within the law, but it was something that needed to be addressed to prevent when we do the audit to prevent stacking of signs in one location. The motion was approved 6-0. BEST BUY P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY - #29-92 Member Carroll stated he was the one who pulled this item and was wondering about the line of trees that runs along the north edge of the property against the back of the Fountainhead P.U.D. The site plan they have indicated Elm Trees would be selectively removed. It was his understanding that when this was addressed by an earlier Planning and Zoning Board that line of trees was of some importance. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, on behalf of Best Buy Inc., replied that selective in his mind was that the trees that were healthy and could be saved, would be saved. The back of the Fountainhead Retail Center was not particularly something they wanted to expose to College Avenue so they were not only saving the healthy trees, if they are elm trees, but adding some landscaping along that side. Member Carroll asked if he thought that could be addressed at final, if they would be along that far to where they could make that determination. Mr. Vaught replied they could, they could even go out with the City arborist and tag the trees that he thought acceptable to be saved. Member Carroll understood that they were chinese elm, not the type that most landscape architects would put in these days. The south wall of Fountainhead is not one of Fort Collins' aesthetic features and sometimes the folks that were removing the trees have not talked to the architects. If it says selective, and there was someone in a bull dozer, he was concerned. Member Clements -Cooney asked about a letter the Board received from Fountainhead Center Partners which had a number of design questions. Had the applicant received the letter and would these questions and concerns be addressed. Mr. Olt replied that he also received that letter today and provided the applicant with a copy of the letter. The three concerns were drainage from the site, that would be addressed as part of the overall drainage plan for Best Buy and there had not yet been a concern expressed. The applicant and Staff has had discussions throughout the review process about the potential for the service vehicles for Best Buy using the Fountainhead driveway. That would be something that Staff would want assurance on as we move through the process as to how that was going to occur.