CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION

Transcription

1 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION January 20, 2011 Page 16 NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR MEETING: JANUARY 20, 2011 ITEM: 5 STAFF: FILE NO: PROJECT : BRETT VELTMAN CPC NV (RF) CITADEL CROSSING N. ACADEMY BLVD. STAFF PRESENTATION Mr. Brett Veltman, Development Review Manager presented the application via PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). Commissioner Hartsell inquired of the location of the sign heading west. Mr. Veltman replied that sign is at the 12 second visibility mark. Commissioner Hartsell inquired if the sign light would be turned off during the evening? Mr. Veltman stated no, it will be left on. Commissioner Cleveland inquired of staff the speed limit on Platte Ave, and if there is enough time to slow down on the ramp to go into the shopping center? Ms. Krager, City Traffic Engineer, stated that Traffic Engineering is requesting a deceleration lane in order to get into the shopping center, and the curve is also a deterrent for speeding. Commissioner Hartsell inquired of the placement of the sign at 20 ft from the roadway pavement. Ms. Krager stated staff is fine with the location of the sign, unless for some reason that area is problematic for cars. She would review it later to see if guardrail should be installed. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired if staff would be more supportive of the full size sign if it were further from the residences? Mr. Veltman stated no, given the location on the smaller south end of the property, he feels the smaller sign is adequate. Commissioner Stroh inquired if this sign is setting a precedent? Mr. Veltman stated no, there are occasions when it is necessary. It is not frequent, but this sign will help avoid other issues. Commissioner Stroh inquired of revocable permits for this sign? Mr. Veltman stated a permit will be required for this sign.

2 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION January 20, 2011 Page 17 Commissioner Stroh inquired if Lowe s will have additional signage? Mr. Veltman stated just directional signage through the parking lot. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Mr. Patrick Nesbitt, Citadel Crossing Associates, spoke to the application via PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). He provided a brief history of the project and the allowance of the third entrance. Mr. Nesbitt stated that just last week Council approved an incentive package for Lowe s. He stated that Lowe s had three incentives to begin construction in 2011, with a final opening in January of The third entrance, 2 Incentive package, and 3 additional signage. He feels the size of the sign is not adequate for Lowe s. He also feels the additional signage will encourage occupation of the southern part of the center. Mr. Nesbitt stated that the application does meet the variance criteria and feels that there has been a precedent set for the requested sign size. He addressed the original requested location of the sign, the location was higher but was also in the backyard of the neighborhood, so the applicant agreed to move the sign to a less desirable location. He also spoke to Mr. Veltman s visual of the 12 seconds from viewing the sign, and compared the time allowed to react and get off the off ramp into the back entrance of the center. Commissioner Magill inquired of the criteria for Lowe s to agree to move into the center, and will Lowe s back out of the deal with a sign smaller than 28 ft? Mr. Nesbitt replied that yes Lowe s stated that the sign is a requirement of Lowe s decision per the real estate committee. Mr. Nesbitt stated that the real estate committee is not the ultimate decision maker, the committee will have to inform the decision makers, however, the small sign could be a deal breaker. Commissioner Magill inquired of the necessity to list the co tenants on the sign as well as Lowe s? Mr. Nesbitt stated the point is to attract additional tenants. Commissioner Cleveland clarified that if Lowe s was the sole tenant listed on the sign the Lowe s advertisement could be much larger. Mr. Nesbitt stated in order to attract additional tenants to that portion of the property; they would need to be listed on the sign. Mr. John Havick, Spectrum Sign Co. stated that his concern with the size of the sign is getting people safely off of the off ramp and into the property. He displayed a visual of what the sign would look like in comparison to the road at the size recommended by Staff, compared to the requested size. Mr. Havick also compared a picture displaying comparable signs in the area and suggested that the 28 ft height is needed for visibility. Commissioner Hartsell questioned if the assumption is people coming to the center won t know that its there? Mr. Havick stated that this center may need to also be accessed by people who will pull into it on a whim upon viewing the sign.

3 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION January 20, 2011 Page 18 Commissioner Hartsell stated that if someone misses off ramp and are intent on arriving at Lowe s, there are multiple directions to access the shopping center. She was not convinced this sign needs to be the requested height. Commissioner Ham inquired if trees adjacent to the sign are 30 feet high? Mr. Veltman replied the trees behind the proposed sign are 24 to 26 feet high and the trees in front are about 30. Commissioner Ham asked if a neighbor along Potter Circle would view the sign immediately out their back window? Mr. Veltman replied trees are fairly effective in providing screening. CITIZENS IN FAVOR None CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION 1. Mr. Irv Tracy, representing adjacent residential neighbors stated there is no guarantee that the tree buffering will last forever to block the sign s light pollution and parking and ramp lights on the building as well as noise pollution from the commercial center. The neighborhood is in support of Lowe s, however, they are concerned with the negative effects upon the residences. He requested the Planning Commission support staff s recommendation of a smaller sign. 2. Mr. John Cerny, neighborhood representative, felt some of the photos should ve been measured from resident s views and would block some of their views. Mr. Cerny agreed with Commissioner Magill that traffic would be destination area and doesn t need a larger sign. He feels that in this day of modern technology of GPS and internet capability the Lowe s is easily found and isn t solely reliant upon street signage. He questioned if this free-standing sign would beautify this area close to Academy. He also questioned the beautification that is under review for the South Academy Blvd. corridor redevelopment and Scenic Colorado criteria. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mr. Nesbitt felt if location is the only opposition from the neighborhood then the commercial center can take future action to buffer the area. He requested Planning Commission not restrict the size of the sign based upon emotional decisions. Commissioner Ham inquired if sign lit 24 hours per day? Mr. Nesbitt sated he would be willing to limit lighting times if required.

4 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION January 20, 2011 Page 19 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Moved by Commissioner Hartsell, seconded by Commissioner Suthers, to approve Item 5, CPC NV (RF), nonuse variance to allow a third freestanding sign where two are allowed at 545 N. Academy Boulevard based upon the finding that the nonuse variance complies with the review criteria in City Code Section B, and is subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Record: 1. The sign be limited in height to a maximum of 15 feet. 2. The sign be limited in area to a maximum of 100 square feet. 3. The sign lighting shall be turned off between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Commissioner Hartsell felt this location would not be competing with any other commercial site. She felt Lowe s is a destination site and other entrance locations other than that site. Commissioner Ham requested friendly amendment to add a condition limiting the lighting from 11pm to 7am (lighting turned off at 11pm). Commissioners Hartsell and Suthers accepted the amendment (refer to bolded condition added above). Commissioner Stroh tries not to be swayed by economic conditions or agreements. He felt this application has many compromises and Planning Commission is required to address City standards as a whole. Commissioner Magill agreed with Commissioner Stroh s comments. Uniqueness of center is that it has more Academy Blvd. frontage compared with other centers. Lowe s has a difficult location configuration, but doesn t lend to community s impact to land use code criteria. He supported the motion. Commissioner Gonzalez stated two existing signs are 24 and 29 feet high along Platte Avenue, square footage is smaller, but is comparison of more recognizable signs when driving higher speeds along Hwy24/Platte Avenue. He felt taller sign may be more appropriate along this corridor. He felt sign is essential, but consensus is shorter sign. Commissioner Cleveland supported taller sign and would vote against motion.

5 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION January 20, 2011 Page 20 Commissioner Stroh stated most comparable signs in applicant s presentation are located on private property. A larger sign would set precedence. He cautioned Planning Commission to vote against preference and to review the criteria comparing signage on publicly-owned property versus privately-owned land and its impact upon adjacent residences. Motion to approve carried 5-2 (Commissioners Gonzalez and Cleveland opposed with Commissioners Butcher and Butlak excused). January 20, 2011 DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR

6 Exhibit: A Agenda Item: 5 CPC Meeting: January 20, 2011 File No CPC NV (RF) Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. 1/20/11 Brett Veltman

7 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. VICINITY MAP Woodmen MLK Academy Constitution Powers

8 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. Proposal For a Third Freestanding Sign Height Area Applicant's Proposal 28 Feet 150 Sq. Ft. Neighborhood Proposal Feet Sq. Ft. Staff Recommendation 15 Feet 100 Sq. Ft.

9 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd.

10

11 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. Nonuse Variance Review Criteria 1. The property has exceptional or extraordinary conditions that do not generally exist in nearby properties in the same zone district. 2. That the extraordinary or exceptional physical condition of the property will not allow a reasonable use of the property in its current zone in the absence of relief. 3. That the granting of the variance will not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding properties.

12 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. 1. Exceptional Conditions Supported by property configuration and new entrance 2. Reasonable Use Supported by need for access identification and safety 3. Adverse Impact Need to minimize negative impacts by limiting sign size

13

14

15

16 Sign Legibility

17 Highway Sign 1,170 feet to the East

18

19 Basis For Size Reduction Neighborhood concerns/maintain screen Advantageous location in ROW Scale is too large for location Sign exceeds six seconds of visibility No other competing signs

20 Section E.3 of the City code: Variances are to be granted only to the extent necessary to afford a reasonable use of property.

21 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. Recommendation Approve the nonuse variance to allow a third freestanding sign where two are allowed at 545 N. Academy Boulevard based upon the finding that the nonuse variance complies with the review criteria in City Code Section B, and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sign be limited in height to a maximum of That the sign be limited in area to a maximum of 100 square feet.

22 Citadel Crossing Freestanding Sign 545 N. Academy Bd. Questions? Staff Recommendation Approximate Simulation 15 ft. tall sq. ft. Proposed Sign Approximate Simulation 28 ft. tall sq. ft.

23

24

25

26

27