HomeMy WebLinkAboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT - 51-90 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSD evelo ent Services
Planning Department
December 18, 1990
Mr. Al Hauser
Architecture One
Palmer Gardens, Suite 200
150 East 29th Street
Loveland, CO. 80538
Dear Mr. Hauser:
The Planning Department has reviewed the P.U.D. request for a Taco Bel
restaurant, with drive-thru capability, at 1530 and 1538 South College Avenue
The following comments are offered:
It is the position of the Planning Department that the existing Wickersham
house should be adaptively remodeled and expanded to accommodate an
enlarged restaurant facility with a double drive-thru lane. The site is
located on the fringe of the East Side neighborhood, and on a block that
is characterized by large residential structures, mature trees, and a
common architectural theme. This particular site has been developed since
the homes were constructed in the early 1930's and when Taco Bell
developed in the early 1970's. The proposed P.U.D., therefore, represents
an urban retro-fit situation, not a vacant piece of ground typically
associated with suburban development. It is within this framework that
the Staff recommends adaptive re -use of the house versus removal of the
house and a totally new facility.
In making this determination, Staff has evaluated many competing factors
and has weighed the considerations of the available options. The
particular issues examined by Staff are summarized as follows:
Neighborhood Character
There is a distinct character between Pitkin Street and Prospect Road on both
sides of College Avenue. This four block area is typified by residential
structures that have been converted to multi -family or office uses. These
structures are sound and, in general, architecturally significant. The house at
1530 South College represents the "Revival" period and the "Mission" style
architecture. This style relates to the mission theme that is used by the Taco
Bell standard design. It is Staff's feeling that this similarity should be
capitalized and not ignored.
College Avenue Transition Area
The four block area between Pitkin and Prospect, on both sides of College,
represents a visual transition area from the early, established City core, to.the
281 N. College AvenUe • P.O. BUN ;80 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-67�0
modern, South College Avenue retail strip. This transition is important to
maintain. North of Prospect Road, College Avenue takes on unique flavor with
High School Park, CSU campus, and the mid -town shopping district. This flavor
contributes to the overall visual integrity and urban form of the City along the
busiest arterial street. It is Staff's position that this transition area is
vital and would best be enhanced by re -using the existing house.
C. Trees
The existing, mature trees north of Prospect Road are a treasure. Trees of this
magnitude are found only north of Prospect Road and no where else on College
Avenue. These trees must be preserved in order to promote the neighborhood
character and the transition function. By adaptively re -using 1530 South College
Avenue, these trees can be preserved.
D. Architectural Compatibility
The site is located adjacent to the R-L, Low Density Residential zone, the East
Side Neighborhood, and the Laurel School Historic District. Re -using the house
would promote the plans and policies already in place that are designed to
stabilize the area. The architectural integrity of the house contributes to this
stabilization. It is Staff's feeling that adaptive re -use best promotes the
visual compatibility that is necessary to accomplish the objectives of the City's
existing policies.
The Planning Department is sensitive to the implications of this recommendation
upon Taco Caliente. Staff recognizes and appreciates the concern that this
organization has brought to the planning process. Taco Caliente responded to the
concerns of the Planning Department and did not pursue the Rumley purchase which
would have been a penetration into the East Neighborhood Buffer Area and the R-L
zone district. Taco Caliente has worked closely and cooperatively with the City
Engineering Department regarding the Choices 95 intersection improvement program.
Taco Caliente has sincerely participated in two neighborhood meetings with
surrounding property owners and has indicated that management actions will help
resolve the neighborhood issues.
In addition, Staff recognizes the improvements associated with a new project.
The removal of an out dated store, the replacement of the outdated pole sign, and
the closure of excessive curb cuts are all factors that will improve the overall
streetscape of the area.
Indeed, Staff's recommendation would be different but for the exceptional
potential of the existing structure. This house is structurally sound,
architecturally significant, and has a symbiotic relationship with the Taco Bell
mission style look. It would seem ironic to remove a genuine, mission revival
style structure only to replace it with a modern replica.
Staff is also sensitive to the cost comparisons of building a new store on a
cleared site. While we recognize the financial burden of a adaptive re -use,
financial considerations are not a criteria found in the Land Development
Guidance System on which we can base a recommendation.
As mentioned previously, our frame of reference is that this project is an urban,
infill, retro-fit situation. The site is constrained by the context of the
surrounding area. This particular site calls for special treatment that would
not normally be associated with a site in a planned shopping center. The
expectation of duplicating a store found in a suburban situation must be tempered
by the contextual realities of both the site and neighborhood.
As part of our Staff review, we have included comments based on the submitted
P.U.D. calling for a new facility, with double drive-thru lane, on a cleared
site. Again, the basis for the comments were influenced by neighborhood
compatibility and potential impacts of new development. In general, it was the
evaluation of these comments that led Staff to conclude that the existing
structure at 1530 South College Avenue should be adaptively re -used. These
comments are as follows:
The site plan indicates the loss of three, large mature trees. One of
these trees is along College Avenue and two are along the south of the
existing structure. As indicated earlier, these trees represent a vital
component of the functional and visual transition between the old town
core and the modern South College Avenue commercial strip. This
transition is an important urban design element along College Avenue.
These trees should be preserved in islands.
2. In order to preserve the tree on College Avenue, it may mean shifting the
building slightly to the east. In order to save the tree on the
southeast, it may mean placement of a landscaped island at the east end of
the parking row that faces north. In order to save the tree on the south-
central, it may mean lining up a landscaped island with a handicap ramp.
3. Staff recommends that the outer, overflow drive-thru lane be eliminated,
and the building be shifted to the north. This would free up available
space for turf landscaping on Prospect, and would allow more creative
solutions for saving the south-central tree.
4. Staff recommends that the center parking be defined by a landscaped island
on the east flank. This island should contain two trees and sufficient
number of shrubs to cover the planting bed (usually 10 to 12 shrubs).
5. There is a strong concern with the architectural concept and the blending
in with the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, the west elevation
presents a stark contrast to the existing features on the block. Staff
recommends that the west elevation be modified so that the projecting,
stucco arch be eliminated. This elevation should not feature any
component above the roof line. The central window may project outward
from the vertical plane but not upward. The elevation, windows, and
roofline should remain residential in character so it blends in with the
block.
6. The exterior brick veneer should be light colored brick to match the
existing exteriors on the block.
7. The south elevation should indicate a planter box on the west side of the
entry and a landscape shrub bed, with ornamental trees, on the east side
of the entry.
d
8. The sidewalk on the south elevation should be widened from five feet to
six feet to account for vehicle overhang.
9. The use of Tami Junipers at the College Avenue curb cut will cause
visibility problems. It is suggested that a Broadmore Juniper or other
low growing junipers be substituted.
10. Staff applauds the use of a ground mounted sign as the free-standing sign.
There remains, however, a concern about the balance of signage on the
site. The south elevation is the logical location for the wall signage as
proposed. This signage faces the direction of the traffic that has the
ability to make a right turn into the site. The west elevation should be
free of signage as this is the elevation that must blend in with the block
face.
Staff recommends that the west central window take advantage of using
etched glass as a substitute for wall signage. Etched glass was
successfully used by the new Burger King at South College and Troutman
Parkway.
11. Staff is very concerned about broad, neon, temporary window striping as a
form of advertising. This type of signage is considered distasteful and
is reminiscent of price wars on a commercial strip where merchants try to
"out -shout" each other until the public ultimately suffers from the visual
pollution. Staff applauds the P.U.D. which indicates that there will be
no such window signage. In order to make the P.U.D. clear for future
reference, please replace Note #7 with the following language:
"All signage on this P.U.D. is restricted to the number, type, location
and size as specifically noted on this P.U.D. Any changes or deviations
shall be reviewed, -in advance, by the City of Fort Collins by the
administrative review procedure, including, at the Planning Director's
discretion, referral to the Planning and Zoning Board."
12. Note Number #8 should be revised to read:
"Site directional signage shall not contain logos or other identifying
symbols, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR SQUARE FEET."
The following comments are generic and not specific to any one development
scenario:
13. Please add the following notes to the landscape plan:
"A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or
shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned, or removed on the public
right-of-way."
"Edging between grass and shrub beds shall be 1/8" x 4" steel set with top
of sod."
"All existing trees shall be pruned to the City Forester medium prune
standards."
14. Light fixtures should be restricted to 16 feet in height which is the
local street standard for the City of Fort Collins Light and Power
Department. Note Number #4 should be revised accordingly. Also, Note
Number #4 should state that such fixtures shall be down directional, 90
degree, cutoff luminaire.
15. The fencing detail should be highlighted with a schematic drawing on the
P.U.D. Height and materials and color should -be specified.
16. The P.U.D. site plan should indicate the adjacent zoning and land use
within 150 feet of the subject site.
17. Pull the fence along the east property line back 15 feet from the flowline
to ensure adequate sight distance at the alley.
18. The site plan should indicate the 6' x 15' utility easement in the
northeast corner of the lot for electrical facilities.
19. Handicap parking must be designated by a raised sign.
20. Application for a State Highway Access Permit must be made to the City.
This concludes Staff comments. Because of the sensitivity of this project, these
comments are lengthy and detailed. While these comments may seem exhaustive, it
is not Staff's intent to discourage Taco Bell's expansion plans. It is Staff's
intention to work with. Taco Bell to succeed on this property within a
constructive framework that recognizes a variety of legitimate concerns.
Please note the following schedule for the January 28, 1991 Planning and Zoning
Board public hearing:
Plan revisions are due January 9, 1991.
P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, and colored prints are due January 21, 1991.
As I have mentioned, the hearing on January is intended to be a preliminary only.
The final will be considered on February 25, 1991. This will allow a four week
final review, with the benefit of P & Z comments, without having to resubmit a
package of materials. This will also allow time for final utility plans and
development agreement to be revised into final form.
I look forward to working with your firm and Taco Bell to resolve all the
outstanding issues.
Sincerely:
7�
Ted Shepard
Project Planner
cc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior Planner
Les Nordhagen
Mike Herzig, Development Engineer