No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINECONE APARTMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE PUD FINAL - 60 91E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 25, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairperson Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier and Renee Clements -Cooney. Board member Lloyd Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item I - Election of Officers - pulled off the Consent Agenda for consideration and placed at the end of the Discussion Agenda; Item 2 - Minutes of the December 17, 1992 meeting; Item 3 - Pinecone Apartments PUD - Final, Case #60-91E, was pulled for Discussion by Staff; Item 4 - Gilsdorf Garage Expansion - Non -Conforming Use, Case #60-92; Item 5 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 15th Filing - Preliminary (New Mercer Commons PUD), Case #53-85AB; Item 6 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 8th Filing - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #53-85AC; Item 7 - Siegmund Medical Office PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #62-92A; Item 8 - Paragon Point PUD, Phase III - Preliminary, Case #48-91E, was pulled by the Board for discussion; Item 9 - Oakridge Village PUD, 9th Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82BA, was pulled by an audience member; Item 10 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval. ` Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - Shadowbrook PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final, Case #61-92; Item and 12 - Overland lulls West - RF Site Plan Review, Case #38-90D. Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Member Clements - Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. )PINECONE APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL - CASE #60-91E Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave a brief Staff Report of the proposed project. She stated that this project was pulled for discussion because the illuminated stripe on the gasoline canopy at the convenience store would not be considered a sign element subject to the Sign Code but rather an element of the PUD which would be required to be reviewed by the Planning and Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 2 of 14 Zoning Board. She stated that staff reviewed this element against Criteria #2 and #24 of the LDGS and the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Design Guidelines. Policies and Criteria and found that the illumination of this stripe was not supported by these documents. She cited Criteria #24 as: "Is the exterior lighting, except for overhead street lighting and warning emergency or traffic signals, installed in such a manner that the light source will be sufficiently obscured to prevent excessive glare on public streets and walkways or into any residential area? The installation or erection of any lighting which may be confused with warning signals, emergency signals or traffic signals shall not be permitted." Ms. Whetstone cited Criteria #2 as: "Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural scale, bulk and building height, identity and historical character, disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot, and visual integrity?" Ms. Whetstone stated that Section 4.9 of the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Design Guidelines have not been addressed by the present plan. She stated that staff recommended approval of Pinecone Apartments PUD with a condition that, the red stripe on the gasoline canopy not be illuminated, by back lighting, or any means. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., represented the developer of the site and Schraeder Oil Company. He believed that, before this condition was imposed, the Board should be informed about today's staff review. He stated that this convenience center was designed with more sensitivity to its neighborhood context than any other in Fort Collins. He briefly discussed pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation, architectural form and materials matching the apartments, limitation of signage, setbacks, landscaping, and the integration of the convenience store with the apartment complex. He urged the Board to keep in mind that it was in everyone's interest that this convenience store tie in with the neighborhood, is located in a planned business zone and is not an isolated convenience store in a residential area. He stated that an important element in meeting the needs of planning goals is that new stores that meet Phillips 66 criteria will receive incentives to make the new store possible. In this case, retaining the ability to light the access drive is important after having accomplished so many other things to tie in with the neighborhood. Schraeder Oil has been very flexible with this particular building. He stated that the lighting would be soft and would be integrated into the canopy and would be fairly muted. He believed that this lighting would not constitute excessive glare and would not spill into residential areas and that it does meet Section 4.9 guidelines of the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Guidelines. w Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes January 25, 1993 Page 3 of 14 Member Carroll asked what would be the illumination of the building. Mr. Ward replied that the building would have the interior lighting and perhaps some downlighting in the eaves. He stated that there would be no neon lighting. He presented slides of various Phillips 66 stores showing the canopies and their illumination and slides of drawings of the proposed project. Member Cottier asked if there would be any red stripe on the building. Mr. Ward replied that there would only be accent color from the sign but no bright accent colors on the building itself. There was no public input. Member Cottier stated that she did not find the lighting objectionable. She stated that the building was attractive and that she had no problem with the illuminated stripe. Member O'Dell concurred with Member Cottier and appreciated that a softer lighting is proposed, that there is only one canopy but she could also see staff's point of view. Member Carroll commented that he does not have a problem with the lighting. Member Klataske commented that he was not opposed to the lighting on the stripe and believed that the back lighting on the band would not be obtrusive. Member Klataske moved to approve Pinecone Apartments PUD Final with the deletion of the final recommendation of Staff regarding the back lighting on the gasoline canopy. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she understood that the oil company has worked to meet the needs of the LDGS and that their intent is to be a good neighbor to the community and directly adjacent to the site. However, it was not her position to be concerned with Phillips 66 criteria. She believed that Staff has done their job in interpreting the LDGS and she concurred with Staff's position. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Clements -Cooney in the negative.