HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOLLAR RENT A CAR PUD PRELIMINARY - 42 90 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
November 19, I990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker,
Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman. Member Laurie O'Dell was absent.
Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Peter Barnes, Paul
Eckman, and Kayla Ballard.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda consisted of Item 1, the Minutes of the October 1, 1990 meeting. The Discussion Agenda
consisted of. Item 2, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code, "Zoning, Annexation, Development
of Land", Case *33-90; Item 3, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code, "Zoning, Annexation,
Development of Land," Case #43-90;Item 4, Dollar Rent-A-Car PUD, Preliminary, Case #42-90;
Item 5, Foothills Auto Plaza PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case 4052-85B, and; Moreland PUD,
Amended Final, Case #14-83D.
Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider the tabling of the Eastside/Westside
Neighborhood Plans Rezonings from the December 17, 1990 meeting to the regular February
meeting.
Member Strom moved to approve Item 1 of the Consent Agenda. Member Walker seconded to
motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Member Carroll moved to table the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plans Rezonings to the
February Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6-0.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE - #33-90
Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, gave a description of the proposed amendment. He
stated the comprehensive Sign Code was adopted in 1971 as an element of the City Zoning code.
In its original form it did not allow off -premise signs. The Council amended the Code in 1979
to allow off -premise signs due to case law which brought into doubt the legality of prohibiting
the off -premise sign industry from operating in Fort Collins.
The amended Code allowed off -premise signs, with the only requirement for such signs being
that they comply with the same regulations pertaining to on -premise sings. The code
amendment also provided for a 5 year amortization period for a❑ existing off -premise signs
which did not comply with the regulations pertaining to size, height and location. These signs
had to be removed by 1984. However, the sign companies which own the non -conforming
billboards did not remove them, and instead filed suit against the City claiming that if the City
wanted the signs down then Federal and State laws required the City to pay compensation.
•
Member Cottier commented that the billboards are not used that much by small businesses as
opposed to large businesses. It is the Board's policy to try and not consider economic issues in
making their decisions. It is the Board's desire to improve the aesthetic appearance in Fort
Collins.
Chairman Klataske commented that if this passes tonight, he hopes City Council will take that
recommendation and work with the county on the sign issue. He believed that this would not
affect the small businesses but a moratorium as in Option B would affect them.
The motion to approve passed 6-0.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE "ZONING ANNEXATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF LAND." - Case #43-90
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, stated that this was a request to amend the Zoning
Ordinance in order to establish regulations pertaining to vehicle -mounted signs. He stated that
there are a number of businesses in the city which display signs on vehicles or trailers where
the primary purpose appears to be for sign display. In some cases, these signs are the only signs
on the property advertising the business. In other instances these signs are in addition to
permanent signage advertising the business, and in still other instances the sign is an off -
premise sign in that it advertises a product or service which is located somewhere else than
upon the lot where the sign is displayed. In all cases though, the use of such signs is not in
keeping with the intent of the sign code which is to create orderly signage along the streets of
the city. These proposed regulations attempt to control vehicle -mounted signs in a manner
which closes the loophole. He added that this proposed ordinance is intended to address
concerns primarily related to signs which are placed on the deck of a trailer or in the back of
a pickup.
Mr. Barnes stated that in Section 1, a definition is added for "vehicle -mounted sign" to the
definition section of the Zoning Code. As proposed, the term would refer to any signage placed
on or in a vehicle as well as any signage which is placed on any object which in turn is placed
in or attached to a vehicle. The amendment also defines the meaning of the term "vehicle."
Member Carroll moved to recommend adoption of staff recommendation regarding vehicle -
mounted signs. Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Walker commented that this was closing a loophole that should have been closed a long
time ago. He believed there was a safety issue here as well as an issue of sign clutter.
The motion was approved 6-0.
DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR PUD - PRELINIINARY -CASE #42-90
Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project stating that the signage on the site will
consist of one wall -mounted sign board o the front of the building, and a double face, pole
mounted sign 18 feet high with each face being 3' X 8'. The pole is existing and is located just
to the left of the front entry approximately 5 feet out from the building. He stated that staff
recommended approval with two staff conditions: 1) The applicant provide a 5 foot wide
planting area adjacent to the existing asphalt walkway between the curb and the property Iine
on both sides of the existing 35 foot main driveway curb cut. A minimum of three deciduous
6
trees (either shade or ornamental) and a mix of deciduous and evergreen shrubs with landscape
mulches as understory should be included in these areas. These landscape improvements must
be installed during the spring, 1991 planting season, and; 2) the applicant must be responsible
for cutting and removing the existing concrete ramp at the second drive, backfilling with base
course and pouring asphalt to match existing, and constructing new curb and gutter to match
existing curb and gutter. The timing for construction of these improvements will be determined
at the time of final approval.
Member Strom asked if it was common to award energy conservation points to existing
buildings.
Mr. Olt replied that it was common for points to be awarded.
Chairman Klataske asked why signage would be pole mounted versus monument and what
would be the height.
Mr. Olt replied that pole mounted signage would be more appropriate because the pole already
exists and it is approximately 3 lots back from College. The adjacent building would block the
view of a monument sign.
Member Walker asked if the sign could be located in a different place or was it just more
convenient to locate it at the proposed place because there is an existing pole.
Mr. Olt stated that this was not really considered to place the sign elsewhere. He stated there
was a limited area to where the sign could have gone and the pole was already in place.
Member Walker asked how the 18 foot high sign comes within the sign code.
Mr. Olt replied that 18 feet is allowable because of the setback.
Member Strom asked if the Board has the authority over the sign since it is consistent with a
use -by -right.
Mr. Peterson replied that he did not believe the Board had that authority.
Member Strom stated that if the Board approved a PUD, that PUD would take precedent over
other aspects of development on the site.
Mr. Peterson stated that this PUD was only a request for auto sales, not for a rental car use.
Mr. Olt stated that the signage would advertise only the rental car aspect of the request.
Mr. Peterson stated that the LDGS, Item 46, All Development Criteria, deals with signs.
Mr. Barnes stated that a permit has been issued for the Dollar Rent-A-Car sign at the 18 foot
height under the use -by -right.
Member Carroll asked if the proposed use would be for renting cars and selling cars but before
it was used just for renting cars.
Mr. Olt stated that it would be for rental and selling and previously was just for car rental.
• 7
Dan Ressue, Manager of Dollar Rent-A-Car, stated that they were only renting the property
and believed that they shouldn't remove the existing concrete drive when they do not own the
property. He added that staff recommended sidewalk striping of 4' - 5' and moveable planters.
This would not permanently change the property as to not agree with the codes and prevent
further improvements later.
Chairman Klataske asked if the owner has agreed to these conditions requested by the renter.
Mr. Olt replied that there has been no contact with the property owner, but he was aware of
the requests and conditions by the applicant.
Member Cottier asked what was the difference between the proposed landscaping and movable
planters and staff's requests.
Mr. Olt stated that timberform planters on top of asphalt could damage the asphalt as originally
proposed by the applicant. The applicant then made the proposal of moveable planters which
could be attractive, although the moveable planters do not serve the purpose of blocking off
the second drive.
Member Strom asked if the City had a policy on gravel parking lots.
Mr. Barnes stated that the City's parking ordnance required that parking lots be hard surface_
These requirements applied to use -by -right. This proposed parking area was totally behind the
building and not visible from a public right-of-way and is under the control of the employees.
Member Strom asked if there was a wheel stop or curb planned between the vehicle display area
and the walkway.
Mr. Olt replied that curb stops are required to maintain a 4 foot walkway.
Member Cottier moved to approved Dollar Rent-A-Car Preliminary without the condition stated
by staff which would allow the applicant to propose moveable planters. The motion failed due
to lack of a second to the motion.
Member Strom moved to approve Dollar Rent-A-Car Preliminary with the two staff conditions.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom commented that the landscape condition was important because the Board would
be backing away from their responsibility under the LDGS to approve a PUD that doesn't come
up to the standards being set by the adjacent property owners. He added that the curb cut will
eventually have to be closed.
Member Carroll commented that he would support the motion for the same reasons as Member
Strom.
Member Walker commented that, given the current frontage of the property, criteria would
have to be met.
Member Cottier commented that she would support the motion.
Chairman Klataske commented that he had concerns with the sign but he would support the
motion.
8
0 The motion passed 6-0.
FOOTHILLS AUTO PLAZA PUD -PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #52-85B
Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project and recommended approval.
Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, briefly discussed the proposed curb cuts, location of
the project, access driveway, sidewalks, and addition of landscaping.
Mr. Shepard stated that the variance request was to gain primary access off of College Avenue
since the property was landlocked and has no other access.
Member Cottier asked what center this was a part of.
Mr. Shepard replied that this was a community regional shopping center.
Member Cottier asked if points were given to any proposed development, located on South
College Avenue between Prospect and Harmony Road.
Mr. Shepard responded yes.
Chairman Klataske asked how far back from College Avenue can a vehicle be displayed.
Mr. Shepard replied 22 feet or 2' to 4' from the existing curb to bumper. He stated the
breakdown of the 22 feet was 7 feet of sidewalk, 14 feet of landscaping, and a 2 foot strip for
• vehicle overhang.
Member Cottier asked how much landscaping would be added on the proposal.
CJ
Mr. Shepard stated 14 feet.
Chairman Klataske asked if there would be any temporary ramps.
Mr. Shepard replied that he would specifically address the display of vehicles on elevated,
temporary or permanent, ramps on the final site plan.
Chairman Klataske asked what means of enforcement would there be should vehicles be parked
in the landscaped areas.
Mr. Shepard replied that the primary means of enforcement would be the holding of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the building addition. Secondly would be through the City
Attorney's office for a 30 day notice of violation at the end of which would be a 10-15 day
grace period.
Mr. Eckman stated that if there was a code violation, a 30 day notice would not be necessary.
A ticket could be written in the Municipal Court for the violation. Every day would be a
separate violation, no matter what car was parked there.
Member Strom asked for clarification of the landscaping.
d