Loading...
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.