HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMIGOS AT SHIELDS FINAL PUD - 47 90B - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS0
CommL .y Planning and Environmental rvices
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
February 18, 1993
Mr. Frank Vaught
Vaught - Frye Architects
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Frank:
The Planning Department has coordinated its review of Amigos on
Shields Final P.U.D. The following comments are offered:
1. Staff is concerned about the design of the porkchop island and
the width of the curb cuts on Shields. Attached please find
a site plan with a sketch of an expanded porkchop island that
further channelizes the traffic patterns. The expanded
porkchop island will reduce the width of the curb cuts thereby
discouraging left -in and left -out turn movements.
2. The sidewalk across the porkchop island should be detached
from the curb and six feet wide. Ramps should be adjusted
accordingly and should be oriented to the walk, not the travel
lane on Shields.
3. As of this writing, there is a possibility that the Choices
195 project will include a three foot wide median in Shields.
Upon completion of this median, it is recommended that the
porkchop island remain to help channelize traffic between
Campus West and Amigos.
4. The half width right-of-way dedication for Shields should be
40 feet, not 39 feet. Adjacent to this dedicated roadway,
there should be a three foot wide general utility easement.
5. It is not clear from the site plan if the existing
transformer, located in the Campus West alley, will serve the
site. The City of Fort Collins Light and Power Department has
indicated that a new transformer will be needed. Please
verify. If a new transformer is needed, then it should be
indicated on the site plan and screening materials indicated
on the landscape plan.
6. The following comments refer to the plat:
A. The sheet should be labeled one of one, not two of five.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
f
B. The plat needs another control monument and the one shown
must be described.
C. It is not clear whether the outer boundary monuments have
been found or set.
D. The plat should state specifically that 40 feet is being
dedicated as public right-of-way for Shields Street.
Consequently, the lot lines should terminate where the
new dedication is indicated. Please do not indicate that
the lot area includes the area being dedicated.
E. It is not necessary to have a signature block for the
City Clerk when the plat is being processed along with
the P.U.D. and considered by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
7. The following comments refer to the landscape plan:
A. It will be recalled that there was a condition of
Preliminary P.U.D. approval regarding street trees along
Shields. This condition stipulated that street trees be
provided along Shields Street (as an arterial) in
accordance with the policies of the City Forester.
Consequently, it is requested that two additional street
trees (Marshall's Seedless Ash) be added to the
streetscape. The first street tree should be located
within the enlarged porkchop island. The second street
tree should be located between the patio and the
sidewalk. This will result in four street trees across
the 132 feet of lot frontage along Shields.
B. The enlarged porkchop island should feature low-lying
shrubs designed to cover the space at maturity. This
will help "raise" the island and improve driver's
perception. Also, additional landscaping will provide
better definition during the winter months.
C. The Preliminary landscape plan indicated a groundcover
treatment along the southerly foundation wall. This area
should continue to feature landscape materials and not be
entirely concrete as shown on the Final. Other
restaurants have faced similar challenges for these long
and narrow spaces and have found landscape solutions. It
is suggested that the plant material be able to achieve
some height to soften the foundation wall rather than be
a groundcover.
D. Staff is concerned about the reliance of groundcovers and
perennials, in one gallon containers, along Shields
Street. It is not clear if these materials will provide
a sufficient vertical element. The L.D.G.S. states:
f
"Landscape treatment must be balanced with both evergreen and
deciduous plant material with sufficient use of upright
species for vertical control."
The area of concern is along the southern and eastern edges of the
patio. At this time, it does not appear that there is sufficient
vertical landscape elements in these areas, at the proper container
size.
E. Please identify the species of the existing plant
material along the west and south perimeters.
F. Note No. 9 should be revised to indicate that a "Free"
permit is to obtained as there is no cost to the
landscape contractor.
8. The -following comments refer to the signage program:
A. The submittal did not include the architectural
elevations which indicate location and size of the
proposed wall signage. This is critical in determining
whether the total requested signage is within the 132
square feet allowed for the site. The elevation sheet
should include the dimensions and size of the proposed
wall signage.
B. Since the lot has only one frontage, the second free-
standing sign (menu board) can only be permitted by a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is likely
that this variance will be approved due to the
landscaping on the western and southern perimeter.
(Please apply to the Building and Inspections Department
for this variance.) The square footage of the menu board
will be counted against the 132 square feet of allowable
sign area. The elevation sheet should indicate the
dimensions and size of the menu board.
C. The location'of the free-standing monument-sign_may_be-in
violation of that portion of the Sign Code which
addresses sight distance. Cars exiting the drive-thru
lane must have unobstructed visibility to see southbound
traffic on Shields. Attached please find a copy of the
diagram that determines sight distance triangles along
arterial streets. The free-standing sign must be placed
outside this triangle.
D. Please refer to the enclosure addressing the conditions
of approval for the Preliminary P.U.D. Condition number
two stipulates that the free-standing sign be evaluated
for setback (to be addressed by the sight distance
triangle), proportionality, scale, materials of the
pedestal, and relationship with the street. trees. Staff
feels that the proposed height of 10 feet is excessive
for a restaurant that is only 2,332 square feet in size.
f.
The height of the sign should reduced to eight feet
total. The sign should not compete with the canopy of
the Ash trees at maturity but, rather, should be located
under the deciduous canopy. Staff agrees that signage is
a critically important element for drive-thru
restaurants. A sign that competes with the street trees
benefits neither the restaurant or the community. There
are three elements of the sign, the cabinet, the
readerboard, and the base. Staff does not have a
preference as to what elements are reduced, only that the
overall height is in proportion with the building and the
immediate environment.
9. The site plan should indicate the location of any proposed
pole lights. Similarly, the architectural elevations should
indicate the location of wall -mounted lighting. Note number
nine should be expanded to state that all fixtures (both pole
mounted and wall mounted) should be down directional and be
equipped with sharp cut-off luminaries. Please provide the
manufacturer's specification sheets for these fixtures.
Information should include details on the luminaire, wattage,
and lamp size. It is suggested that high pressure sodium
lamps be used as these are the most efficient and are less
glaring than mercury vapor or incandescent.
10. The site plan should include the zoning of the subject and
adjacent properties.
This concludes Staff comments at this time. In order to remain on
schedule for the March 22, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due Wednesday, March 3, 1993.
P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, and colored renderings are due March 15, 1993
Final documents are due Thursday, March 18, 1993. (This includes
the Site and Landscape Covenants).
-Comments from utility agencies are being provided —under separate
cover. The issues pertaining to the drafting of the Development
Agreement will be coordinated by Mike Herzig of the Development
Review Center. As always please call to discuss these comments or
to make an appointment the cover the items in depth.
Sincerely:
7iiek A14Ak
Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
xc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer
Encl.