Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMIGOS AT SHIELDS PRELIMINARY PUD - 47 90A - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCommur 7 Planning and Environmental Planning Department City of Fort Collins August 21, 1992 Mr. Frank Vaught Vaught -Frye Architects 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Frank: rvices Staff has completed its interdepartmental review of Amigos at Shields Preliminary P.U.D. The following comments are offered: 1. Since there is an agreement between Nicol/Campus West and Amigos, the shared curb cut on Shields should be centered on the property line. The "pork chop" island should be designed to be wider. The right -in lane should be located so it is useable for delivery trucks serving the rear of the stores in Campus West Shops. 2. The re -development of this site will require off site drainage easements to be granted by adjacent property owners by the time of Final. Without such easements, the project will not be granted Final approval. Also, the flat grade between the site and Campus West may require that parking stops on the north property line be placed in a concrete drainage pan. 3. Please be aware that design concept of the Choices 195 capital improvement program will be discussed in a worksession with the City Council on October 13, 1992. The design of the project will affect the ultimate amount of right-of-way necessary to be dedicated to the public, and the treatment of the area in front of the store. 4. The developer may be required to provide an offsite easement to serve the site with electrical facilities that are in University. There are already Light and Power facilities across the back of the property, and the two lots between the property and University, however, City maps do not indicate that there is an easement. A four foot wide utility easement for electrical facilities will be needed across the back of the lot. The easement should be dedicated on the final plat. 5. Light and Power Department needs to closely coordinate the location of the electrical transformer. A preferred location would be the southwest corner of the property. 281 North College :Avenue • 1'.0. 130\ 380 • Fort Collins, CO 805_2-o:;SO • (101) 221-o770 6. The plat does not reflect the easements granted to U.S. West Communications. Please contact Richard Siverson at U.S. West so these easements can be shown on the plat. Also, U.S. West has a project in progress that will place buried cable within the easement. 7. The Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart should be used for this project. Our calculation indicates that the project scores only 48% with credit earned for "being part of a planned center", but without any credit for energy conservation. Please submit a corrected point chart. If any energy conservation points are earned, please indicate if Method One or Method Two was used. If Method Two, please include a worksheet. 8. The "Planning Objectives" should clarify that drive-thru restaurants are not a permitted use in the B-L zone district. 9. Staff is concerned that the small site does not offer many opportunities for landscape materials. Every available opportunity should be explored to add landscaping. At minimum, street trees be added to the sodded area along Shields Street. 10. The landscape plan should note that the existing trees are to be pruned to the City Forester's "Medium Prune" standard. 11. The landscape plan is not clear as to the treatment at the front entry on the north elevation. This area should be landscaped with evergreen foundation shrubs. 12. Is it not possible to include a shrub bed for foundation plantings along the south elevation? Obviously, the dispensing window must be as close to the drive lane as possible which would preclude plant material. Other drive-thru restaurants provide landscaping along the drive-thru elevation. Please investigate providing a shrub bed for foundation plantings along the south elevation, except in the immediate area of the dispensing window. 13. The site will be allotted 132 square feet of signage. As proposed, the signage exceeds this allotment. The menu board counts against allowable sign area, and will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for being a second free-standing sign. (Please contact the Building Inspection Division to begin this procedure.) It is strongly suggested that the height of ground sign be reduced. A twelve foot high ground sign is out of proportion with a building that is only 21 feet high. A more appropriate scale would be a sign with an overall height of eight feet. 14. In consideration to the neighborhood, and to find ways to reduce signage, it is suggested that the rooftop parapet wall sign and blue neon borders that face south be deleted. This signage is above the hedge on the south property line and has a direct impact on the residential area to the south. 3 15. Staff is concerned about a four line readerboard. The sign could be upgraded if the copy "Drive-Thru" were placed in the permanent cabinet versus the changeable copy. It is our experience that this copy never changes, it is always part of the readerboard, therefore, it should be part of the permanent sign. Also, it is our experience that four lines of changeable copy is too much information for a typical motorist to absorb while traveling on an arterial street (examples include the Holiday Inn on Prospect and Rocky Mountain Pasta Co.). Already, the sign is asking the motorist to absorb three pieces of information: Amigos, Mexican Food, and Drive-Thru. Adding four lines of changeable copy actually results in less information being absorbed, not more. (Examples of signs that contain far more information that can be absorbed are the tenant directory signs at Cedarwood Plaza and Cimarron Plaza.) Staff suggests that the number of lines be reduced from four to two, and the size of the letters be increased from six to eight inches for readability. Casual observation at the Lemay and Riverside store indicates that a significant portion of the readerboard remains unused at any given time. 16. Onsite directional signage cannot exceed four square feet nor contain any advertising, identification, or logos. Please note this restriction on the plans. 17. Staff is concerned about the use of bright, fluorescent window posters. These signs detract from the overall appearance of the site. The information on these posters would best be displayed on the readerboard, where signage is expected to occur, not in miscellaneous window locations. Please add a note to the plans that there will be no temporary window signage. Temporary exterior banners are allowed for up to 20 days out of the year by special permit from the Building Inspection Division. 18. Please revise Note Number 10 on the Site Plan. The note should state positively and affirmatively that roof top mechanical equipment will be totally screened by the rooftop parapet wall. Such is not the case at Lemay and Riverside. - - - - - 19. The entrance and drive -up elevations are not accurate. These elevations should be revised and labelled south and north respectively. Also, front and rear elevations should be labelled east and west. 20. Please indicate that the trash enclosure will be mounted on concrete, and that the exterior materials (three sides) will match the building exterior. Also indicate that one side will be a solid screen gate. 1 21. At the time of Final, please provide specification sheets for the exterior lighting fixtures. These will include both free- standing light poles and building mounted wall packs. The All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. requires that exterior lighting not cause glare onto adjacent properties. 0 22. Staff applauds the generous area devoted to bicycle parking. Please indicate that racks will be permanently anchored to concrete and not interfere with pedestrian movements. 23. Since the construction of a drive-thru restaurant requires review as a P.U.D., the development will be held to a higher standard than that allowed under "use by right" zoning. The performance of the site elements (landscaping, signage, lighting, screening, etc.) will .be evaluated for the overall impact on the arterial street and adjacent residential neighborhood. 24. At the conceptual review meeting of June 24, 1991, Staff advised, in writing that a neighborhood information meeting would be required. At the conceptual review meeting of July 6, 1992, Staff again advised, in writing, that a neighborhood meeting would be required. As of this writing, this neighborhood information meeting has not occurred. The Land Development Guidance System requires that the neighborhood information meeting occur prior to the formal submittal of a Preliminary P.U.D. The L.D.G.S. also requires that the Planning Director attempt to notify the "impacted neighborhood". Since it has been determined by the Planning Department (in 1991) that the minimum required notification area does not come close to notifying the "impacted neighborhood" (only 14 owners), an expanded area notification map was prepared (118 owners). This map was prepared in 1991 for the anticipated submittal of that year. This map was responded to by the developer and the list of affected property owners was delivered to the Planning Department. The written comments for the July 6, 1992 conceptual review meeting asked the applicant to update the existing affected property owner list based on the expanded notification area. The Preliminary P.U.D. was submitted on August 3,'1992 without the benefit of a request for a neighborhood meeting and without the benefit of the updated affected property owner list. Staff is still willing to proceed with a neighborhood information - at this late date. The date of September 10, 1992 has been indicated as the preferred date by the applicant. The mailing should occur no later than August 31, 1992. If the applicant still refuses to prepare the updated list, then the Planning Department is considering gathering the updated addresses. September 10, 1992 is only two weeks away from the September 28, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. The applicant should be fully aware that the Planning and Zoning Board may elect to continue the Preliminary P.U.D. to the October 19, 1992 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. It is strongly advised that the applicant fully assess this risk before proceeding with the revised plans for the Preliminary P.U.D. Y If the applicant wishes to proceed to the September 28, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, then the following deadlines should be noted: Plan revisions are due September 3, 1992 10 prints, colored renderings, P.M.T.Is are due Sept. 21, 1992 As always, please call to discuss these comments or to set up an appointment. Sincerely: Ted Shepard Senior Planner xc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer