HomeMy WebLinkAboutFAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER SECOND REPLAT - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-10-20CO CEP •UAL. REVIEW
STAF F COMMENTS
...t'+,"�h.�-,-"^'i^!'.a'.Mi4'.:.<ctwY2iY?c!:`wt':%+�a% ' a::�w,. �.l�sig..'1ct�fXyr`�:r!'r�.'a^.s.+�Yw;v.,t�i'r+s�icwf_r�i:.'�^�;.sauhtai_.-1-.:'P"Tss„9+ty:*.-"+_e�rsac tiv..,y'2.Sa�J�$''i �i `►='i!.y..6i::;.�
MEETING DATE: October 21, 1985
ITEM: Carl's Jr. Restaurant
APPLICANT.A,. Architecture One, C/O Al Houser, John Freeman, 107 W. 29th Street
Loveland, CO
LAND USE DATA: Drive-in restaurant and 4-bay car wash on 1.4 acres on west
Elizabeth Street west pf City Park Avenue.
COMMENTS:
1. Please refer to comments made at the previous conceptual review.
2. A joint parking arrangement between this property and adjacent uses is
very desirable and should be pursued. Amount of parking remains a
major issue along this commercial strip.
3. When the project is submitted, staff will have additional comments
concerning the landscape plan.
4. Staff is concerned about potential car stacking problems at the
entrance from Elizabeth St.
5. Staff is concerned about the design of the two parking spaces located
near the pick-up window of the restaurant.
6. Particular attention must be paid to lighting and noise from the car
wash and how it will affect existing and future land uses adjacent to
this property.
7. Aesthetic concerns to be addressed include landscaped setbacks,
perimeter buffering, traffic islands, and the like. These concerns will
be further noted when the project is submitted.
s
date:29 Oct 8� deVartmen:,.
Ism
RaWl
RM ,86785Carly',s Junior Restaurant & Car Wash— & Final
ITEM:
.j
■
r
r
r
r
COMMENTS
�Yls
I
Wk s k mat' 1•:e
f PS
a�vwihC R�td vlrli�i
2#e
%t h S Cow+1r�►KtCf
Tr-c 17 1
I CJJ
i 7 IVeAAI A See we s e der a-F bust l d' 7 a
e vA (sae p«ky w/�.w gitd zA C k,v,,,,o
dvr we&A^ is a at�--
�t s cQ.t e 5 <(44 1
IDZ,
a Gvvp / wahC afa 4", s�s�tl/
i�
bo s Moot �14 s �7L
Novef ar 1 - 1 7 1J
Mr_ Al Hauser
Architecture One, F.G.
1%07 !- est 29th Street. Gui to -700
Loveland, CO ec)= 7
Dear Al:
Staff has reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD submittal and
has the fof1owinq comments. Revisions ref1ectino these comments
are due by noon on November 27th to complete the submittal.
Items that cannot be shown graphically should be addressed in
writing.
1. The Storm Drainage Utility (Tom Gathmann) points out two
problems. The high water elevation of the pond is the same as
the floor level of the adjacent building. Surcharging of the
storm sewer may reduce the design release rate and plugging of
the orifice may bloc: 100 release.
`'. An emergency access easement must be dedicated through the
site (east to west).
Engineering needs vacation of easement 1riformati — Also,
easements should be dedicated for the restaurant sanitary sewer
and the car wash gas line. ,
4.-nrainage and utility plans should be combined. Design of the
storm sewer should be included. Elevations along the property
'Line at Potts, should be shown.
5. Parking on both ends of the car wash may be 17'
6. Ramps must be provided where sidewalks cross drives. A 10"
transition between between Potts narrower sidewalk and the
proposed walk; is required. A note should be added to the plan
that damaged curb, qutter and sidewalk must be replaced.
7. The two space customer waiting area west of the restaurant is
somewhat awkward. We suggest moving it to the east side of the
drive, parallel to the drive. The driveway should be at least
14' wide (it scales 12') .
S. The car wash measures 69' in length yet the plans note a 60'
dimension.
9. I-ndicate the building envelope lines and dimension.
10. Trio distribution in the Traffic Impact Study is not
acceptable. The City Traffic Engineer believes more turns will
happen at the Potts/Elizabeth Street entrance. Given the fact
that individuals will use the Potts entrance, the developer will
need to adiust the Potts parking lot design to accomodate the new
use. Shared parking is a workable concept, however the vehicular
oovements r?slulting ircm the proposed acceptable.
d=C gn gre not table.
_
Removal of the curbing adds to this problem.
1 t . The access road to the ~test of the restaurant should be
wi d =ned at the south end For better traffic flow and for future
access to Matador Apartments.
12. A left turn bav (restripin,e) on Elizabeth Street will be the
responsibility of the developer.
17. A detailed parking analysis indicating_ peat; hours and amount
of sharing between all uses in the PUD should be provided.
Staff is concerned about the adequacy of parking in this area
since City guidelines suggest 51 spaces for the restaurant, and
the fact that the existing uses are having some difficulty
meeting their parking needs.
14. Please provide a west and south elevation of the restaurant.
The plan should note the type of exterior material on the
southeast end of the building.
15. We suggest showing the proposed building footprints for the
future Matador Apartments on the plan. This will help both
Planning and Traffic staff in evaluating the impacts of the
project.
16. Note the color of the proposed brick on the elevations.
17. Hours of operation for both uses must be noted an the site
plan.
1S. The plans should note that signage will be limited to that
shown on the site plan and elevations.
19. Staff is concerned that the site cannot support the intensity
of use proposed. Lack: of landscaped Perimeter areas, and
potential circulation and parking problems are indicative of too
much intensity. A less auto —intensive use in place of the car
wash may be a more worktable solution.
20. A landscape plan should have been submitted on October 29th.
Perimeter buffering, street trees, and parking lot landscaping
are all desireable.
21. From a neighborhood compatibility standpoint, the proposed
Matador expansion should be considered. Noise from the vacuums
and car wash as well as lighting are a concern_ Previous car
washes adjacent to residential areas have been required to equip
vacuums with "quiet kits" and specifications for directional
lighting and hours of operation were included on the PUD plan.
22. All Development Criterion ##29 of the Land Development
Guidance System requires measures that will contribute to an
overall reduction in energy use.
2_. Staff does not believe the project should be processed as a
Preliminary/Final PUB, given the amount of detailed information
still needed and the unresol•:ed intensity of use issue. The
Planning and Zcnino Board hasn't teen receptive a one-step review
process either. I suggest we discuss this further when we meet.
I am available to discuss these comments in more detail at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Elaine Kleckner
PI anner
cc: Linda Hopkins
Joe Frank
Rice Ensdorff
Bonnie Tripoli