Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24 - Agendas - Final Aft.KA NSAS 7aye . —1 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain - Fayetteville,AR 7270101 Teleohone:(479)575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISION Monday,January 24,2005,5:30 p.m. Room 219,City Administration Building The following items will be considered: Approval of Minutes from the 1/13/05 meeting. New Business: 1. ADM 05-1375: (O'CHARLEY'S SIGN APPEAL,212): Submitted by RYAN KRING for property located at 8467 N SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2,THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The request is to approve additional wall signage and LED lighting. Property Owner: OVHARLEY'S,INC. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN 2. RZN 04-1358: (CAMILLIERI,405): Submitted by MARIETTA CAMILLIERI for property located at 1208 N GARLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned C-1,NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.24 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial. Property Owner: PHILLIP COLWELL Planner:LEIF OLSON All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning(575-8267),125 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. All interested panics are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD forbearing impaired are available for all public hearings;72.hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330. ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item— Chairman B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Presentation of request—Applicant D. Public Comment E. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion &Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item raise your hand when the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2003 Planning Commissioners Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Don Bunch Alice Church James Graves Sharon Hoover Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Christian Vaught ADM 05-1375 -le Ae PC Meeting of January 24, 2005 �, TARA N'SAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIL.LE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Interim Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: December 29, 2004 ADM 05-1375: (O'CHARLEY'S SIGN APPEAL,212): Submitted by RYAN KRING for property located at 8467 N SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The request is to approve additional wall signage and LED lighting. Property Owner: O'CHARLEY'S, INC. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN BACKGROUND O'Charley's restaurant is located at the corner of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The development includes a 6,413 SF restaurant with 76 parking spaces. The property is within the Design Overlay District and situated south of Target. Large scale development approval for this project was granted by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003 with a 9-0-0 vote. An extension to the approved large scale development was granted by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2004. At present, the development has been completed and received a Certificate of Occupancy. REQUEST The development is allowed a maximum two wall signs (one per street frontage) and one monument sign per Design Overlay District requirements. The applicant requests approval for a third wall sign on the north elevation in lieu of placing a monument sign on the property. The. applicant also requests approval for an additional band of green LED lighting along each wall of the structure. (See attached letter.) DISCUSSION Wall Sign: The Ordinance restricts the number of signs displayed within the Design Overlay District to one wall sign per street frontage and one monument sign for each lot. The subject property is located at the intersection of Steele Blvd. and Shiloh Drive and is very visible from all directions. At the time of consideration of the large scale development,the applicant proposed two "O'Charley's" signs on the south and west elevations with a monument sign located on the southwest corner of K.Weporfsl20051PCReportsIOI-24-05WDM05-1375 (OCharley's).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.1 ADM 05-1375 the property. Since the structure is very visible from the north, the applicant has requested approval to locate a wall sign on the north elevation of the structure in lieu of placing a monument sign on the property. A monument sign placed at the northwest corner of the property would give equal visibility to the property as a the proposed wall sign; however, existing utility easements located along the west and north of the property prevent the location of a monument sign within the existing green space. Staff finds that the proposed wall sign meets the spirit of the ordinance. Accent Lighting: The amount of LED lighting was discussed at length during Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission consideration for approval of this restaurant. The elevations first submitted for consideration had one band of green LED lighting above the parapet of the south elevation. At the time of Planning Commission consideration, it was staffs recommendation that the LED lighting be wrapped around the entire structure. The location of O'Charley's restaurant is very visible. There are no circumstances unique to the location of this structure which would cause the need for additional lighting to attract the attention of potential patrons. In addition, it was the applicant's original request to have less LED lighting than recommended by staff and approved by the Planning Commission(see 05/12/03 staff report). The existing structure is illuminated by a variety of lighting types, including the green LED lighting. The front(south elevation) of the structure is illuminated by 14 lights other than the LED lighting(see pictures). Staff finds that the additional lighting requested serves no additional purpose on this well lit structure but to detract and reduce the the distinctive scenic quality of the I-540 Highway Corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval to allow the placement of three wall signs on the structure, as proposed by the applicant, in lieu of a monument sign on the property. Staff recommends denial of the additional band of green LED lighting on the structure. Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approval ❑ Forwarded to P.C. Meeting Date: January 24,2005 Comments: The :Conditions of Approval listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval or this development item. Signature Date K:IReports120051PC Reports101-24-OSL1DM 05-7315 (OJanuary 24,2005 Planning Planning CommOission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.2 ADM 05-1375 Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations 161.24 Design Overlay District(I-540 Highway Corridor) (A) Purpose. The purpose of establishing a Design Overlay District for the I-540 Highway Corridor is as follows: (1) To protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the 1-540 Highway Corridor by providing for nonresidential developments which will maximize preservation and enhancement of the natural, rural,and open character of the terrain and foliage. (2) To address the issues of traffic and safety. (3) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion, vegetation preservation,drainage and heat islands. (4) To preserve and enhance the economic value and viability of property within and near the Overlay District for the I-540 Highway Corridor. (D) Nonresidential site design and development standards. (1) Greenspace. A minimum of 25 feet of landscaped greenspace exclusive of right-of-way shall be provided along the highway right-of-way and any public street to which the development has frontage. Parking lots shall not encroach into the greenspace and shall be screened when abutting a required . greenspace area. Trees shall be planted at the interval of one tree per 30 linear feet of greenspace area when practicable. (2) Signage (a) Nonresidential free-standing signs. (i) Each separate nonresidential lot will be allowed a single ground-mounted(monument) sign located on the building site. In the case of lots with double frontage,two ground- mounted (monument)signs shall be allowed. (ii) The sign shall be a maximum of six feet high, 75 square feet in area, and setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. (b) Wall signs. One wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall not exceed 20% of that wall area or 200 square feet,whichever is less. A second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more than one front facing a street or highway right-of- way. (c) Illumination. Only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all signs. (d) Multiple tenants The owner of the building shall be responsible for the provisions of one monument sign with sign area for multiple tenants. (e) Sign content. Content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to the name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structure,wall sign or monument. K:IReportsl20051PCReport 101-24-05WDM05-1375 (OCharley's).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.3 ADM 05-1375 (3) Curb cuts. One curb shall be allowed per 200 feet of frontage. No curb cuts shall be allowed within 250 feet of any intersection. (4) Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner to preserve the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread shall not reflect into the adjacent neighborhood. Lighting shall not exceed 35 feet in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures. (5) Exterior appearance. All structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facades facing all street and highway right-of-way. An elevation drawing shall be submitted for each side of the building that faces a street or highway. (6) Building material. Buildings shall be constructed of wood,masonry,or natural looking materials. No structures shall be allowed that have metal side walls UNLESS such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry, or natural looking material. (7) Site coverage. Twenty-five percent(25%)of the site shall be left in open space. Eighty percent(80%) of the open space shall be landscaped which may include ponds and fountains. (8) Optional fencing. All fencing shall be constructed of wood, masonry, or natural looking materials. No optional fencing shall be located within the greenspace required by Section (D)(1). No metal fencing shall be allowed except in the following cases: (a) Wrought iron fencing. (b) If other types of metal fencing are necessary, for security purposes, they may be used if the area is first fenced off with a view obscuring natural or natural looking fencing material. The metal fencing shall be placed inside the view obscuring fencing,and the view obscuring fencing shall be at least the height of the metal fencing. (9) Outdoor storage of material and equipment. All outdoor storage of material and equipment shall be screened with natural vegetation. (10) Access. (a) Pedestrian. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the entrance of the structure by way of a designated trail or sidewalk. (b) Multi-modal. Multi-modal access may be required on nonresidential sites within the Design Overlay District. (For example: The provision of bus stops,bicycle racks,parking stalls for car pools, and bicycle and pedestrian walks and trails). (E) Nonresidential developments and multiple building sites. In the case of nonresidential development involving multiple building sites, whether on one or more platted lots, the above-described regulations shall apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. (F) Large scale development. All nonresidential development within the Design Overlay District shall be reviewed through the large scale development procedure and shall meet all those requirements regulating large scale developments regardless of the size of the tract. K.IReporU120051PCReportsiOl-24-05WDM05-1375 (OLharley's).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.4 ADM 05-1375 (G) Exemptions. (1) Undeveloped or partially developed lots in nonresidential subdivisions lying within the Design Overlay District for I-540 Highway Corridor which have received preliminary or final approval as nonresidential subdivision prior to June 28, 1994,are hereby exempt from compliance with Ordinance No. 3806(§161.21). (2) Owners of lots within nonresidential subdivisions which obtained preliminary or final approval as nonresidential subdivisions prior to June 28, 1994, and not included in the specifically exempted properties may apply for an exemption to the Fayetteville Zoning and Development Administrator. The Zoning and Development Administrator shall respond to the application in writing within 10 working days of the receipt of the application. (3) Completed development upon property subject to such exemption not in compliance with the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 3806 (§161.21) shall be considered pre-existing conforming structures. (4) Nothing contained herein shall limit or prohibit property owners from utilizing the variance provisions contained in Ordinance No.3806(§161.21). CHAPTER 166: DEVELOPMENT 166.14 Commercial Design And Development Standards (A) Purposes. (1) To protect and enhance Fayetteville's appearance,identity,and natural and economic vitality. (3)To protect and preserve the scenic resources distributed throughout the city which have contributed greatly to its economic development, by attracting tourists, permanent part-time residents, new industries, and cultural facilities. (4) To preserve the quality of life and integrate the different zones and uses in a compatible manner. (D) Design elements guidelines for commercial structures. (1) The elements to avoid or minimize include: (a) Unpainted concrete precision block walls; (b) Square"boxlike" structures; (c) Metal siding which dominates the main facade; (d) Large blank,unarticulated wall surfaces; (e) Large out of scale signs with flashy colors. (2) Construction and appearance design standards for commercial structures. (a) A commercial structure or development shall be designed to avoid or minimize the elements set forth in(1)(a)—(d)above. (b) A commercial development which contains more than one building should incorporate a recurring,unifying,and identifiable theme for the entire development site. (c) A development should provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. K:IReports12005PCReports101-24-05WDM05-1375 (OUharley's).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.5 . Planning Commission May 12, 2003 PLMA N6 Lo+"lel�SS1o�1 1`�IIN UTES Page 29 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (O'Charley's, pp 212) was submitted by Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's, Inc. for property located at the northeast corner of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C'2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a 6413 square foot restaurant with 76 total parking spaces proposed with 76 total parking spaces. Hoover: Item number five is a LSD 03-25.00 for O'Charley's. Dawn? Warrick: This is a proposal for a 6,413 square foot restaurant, 76 parking spaces. Surrounding land uses include the Target Store, other retail shops to the south Shiloh Drive and Hwy. 71. To the east retail and parking and to the west a vacant C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoned area. Water and sewer are available to the site. There are no existing trees on the site. Staff is recommending in favor of the project with nine recommended conditions. 1) Applicant shall be required to provide a drainage report showing that the development is in compliance with all of the requirements of the approved storm water plan for CMN Business Park. 2) All utility equipment must be screened in accordance with §166.14. 3) Adherence to the Lighting Standards as noted in §161.21. That includes the parking lot lighting which is not to exceed 35 feet in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures. 4) The applicant has proposed a green LED accent lighting band detail on the building. Staff recommends this detail be consistent on all four sides of the structure. 5) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay Regulations. We had originally recommended that the freezer cooler units at the rear of the structure, which is the north elevation, be painted in order to be consistent with other development projects that have been approved in this area and to address some Planning Commissioner comments from the tour we have spoken with the applicant and we will recommend that the screening around the freezer cooler unit be masonry to be consistent with the materials on the structure and to continue the accents of the split face and brick that surround the building. Revised elevations pursuant to these requests shall be required. Other conditions are standard. Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward? Malloy: Good evening, my name is Steve Mallow, I am with Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects, I am here to represent O'Charley's. Just to add a little bit more. We are getting close to the 200a' store for the O'Charley's chain. Their food is a variety, they tend to say it is American. Restaurant size is 6,273 square feet, 267 seats. I have read through the recommendations by the staff. O'Charley's agrees with them. I would like to point out for items four and five O'Charley's will add the LAD accent band all around all four sides and then in addition on item number five with freezer coolers they have also agreed to continue the same building January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.6 Planning Commission May 12, 2003 Page 30 materials,which will be CMU along the bottom and then brick above that. That will be consistent. I am here for any questions. Hoover: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address this LSD 03-25.00, O'Charley's? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments. 1.� Estes: The lighting band that you just described, can you show us where that is U44 and is it static or is it animated? ��u,SSion Malloy: It is static. We have got it shown on the elevations shown here running along the top of the parapet, it comes across there and runs along. It is not on the actual pilasters themselves but it appears between each one and consistently around the building. Hoover: Commissioner Ostner, a report from Subdivision before I forget. You can do that one. Ostner: I could, but did I miss part of this? I don't recall anything other than the LAD questions and the cooler really, which they talked about. I didn't take notes, I didn't know I was going to have a quiz. My question is for staff. Item number four says that the applicant proposed the green accent on the front and you all requested that it go all the way around. Why is that? What is the reasoning? ® Warrick: They had originally proposed it on the front and then voiced a desire to have it on three sides of the structure and staff's interpretation or recommendation with regard to that is that it go ahead and circle the entire structure so that we don't have one side that is treated differently. All four sides of the structure are quite visible and we felt that having the accent light all the way around the structure would be consistent. It is not a real distracting element I don't think. It is pretty subtle and it really does accent that portion of the structure. We didn't feel that three sides would be desirable. We wanted to go ahead and circle the entire structure. Hoover: Are there any other comments? Allen: Sir, I wondered if you could describe briefly for us your plans for landscaping. Malloy: Did we or did we not submit a landscaping drawing? Have you been able to see any of this? Allen: Yes, I have but I thought there would be interested parties that haven't and maybe you could just briefly describe that for us please. January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.7 Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 cS'UBUWIs�ON e011M'��E� f�1(JV�s Page 27 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (O'Charley's, pp 212) was submitted by Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's Incorporated for property located at the northeast corner of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a restaurant proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-25.00 for O'Charley's submitted by Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's Inc. for property located at the northeast corner of Steele Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a restaurant proposed. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: Sure. We have a 6,413 sq.ft, restaurant proposed with 74 parking spaces proposed. This is going right in front of Target of the corner of Steele and Shiloh. Sidewalks are existing. There are no trees on the site. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the monument sign being reduced to 75 sq.ft. They have not obtained approval from the Architectural Review Committee for CMN Business Park and we are asking them to do that prior to Planning Commission. All utility equipment needs to be screened. Planning Commission determination for commercial design standards in the Design Overlay District. We are recommending that the brick and articulation as well as the awnings be incorporated to the east and west sides of the building as well as on the side that faces Steele, there is a requirement in the Design Overlay District that front facades face all streets so that is what we are looking at. Their site plan looks good. Bunch: Kim? Hesse: No preservation comments. They are meeting our landscaping requirements. Bunch: Ok, Matt? Casey: Most of the improvements are existing. They are required to meet all of the conditions of the approved storm water drainage plan for the CMN Business Park. Bunch: Will you introduce yourself? Williams: I am Roy Williams with Hotchkiss Architects representing O'Charley's. As Sara said, we have modified our plans, our signage meets the requirements staff has asked for. I was not'previously aware of the CMN Architectural Review Committee so we are in the process of going through that and meeting all of their requirements. Regarding the building exterior, the comments that Sara made, I would like to walk you through January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.8 Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 28 the building design. This building design is a little more themed than what Olive Garden may be. O'Charley's theme is a community with a smaller town. This design is with the concept that this has been a building that has been in town for along time. The restaurant company came in and found this brick box and took it and made it something of their own. They used a stone entry and articulated that and broke that piece out. People will drive by and say something is different there. The same thing with the rear of the building,this is something you would see a lot of times in many older towns. You would see a building where there would be an additional section that came in at a later date with a different material, a different color a lot of times. The feel that the building evolved over time and people are familiar with and a popular place to go to. That is the concept of the building and that is why we use these different materials and articulation. I went through the development last night and looked at various restaurant buildings to see what other people were doing as far as the way they were addressing frontage. The ones that I saw did have signage facing the side street and we wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I think we have a building signage on the west elevation facing Steele. This entry is not designed to handle people coming in and our fear is that if we articulated it the same as the front entry we will have people that are parking along that side trying to enter that door and seeking to have service, not being able to get any and having to go back out and go all the way back around or come through the middle of the restaurant causing traffic confusion for the hostesses and the servers that are trying to seat people. The articulation of the entry canopy, I can see being different over that door, possibly a large canopy that is reflective of what is on front. I would ask your consideration and your thoughts on not applying the same extent of expression on the side, as much as anything from the operational standpoint. It will confuse the operation and make it very hard on the hostesses to seat people in a proper manner. We will have a sign on the west side. The other door is completely exit only, that is a fire alarm door. This siding here, Sara thought it was vinyl and it is not. It is hardy plank, it is more durable than an E.I.F.S. or dryvit material and it serves us very well, we have had great success with it. The color copies you have here, we did some material samples. I didn't bring any with me. Just for your knowledge, that is a little pink looking. The ones I printed out show that it is more of a sand stone color. It is not pink and brown like that. Bunch: At this time is there anyone in the audience who would care to comment on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Sara, on the front type fagade, is your primary concern with this area back here? Edwards: Yes. I wasn't implying that an entrance be made, just incorporate the same elements from the front. My concern is with this siding area. We worked very hard with Target and other developments in the area to use January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.9 Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 29 brick and some of those elements and we feel that it would be terribly unfair to them to allow this to go forward when you have other developments out there that have gone through great lengths to meet those standards. Bunch: It is in the Overlay District. If this was in an older part of town the concept for a transition of time might work but this is the Overlay District and it has pretty strict requirements and it is visible from all sides. As Sara said, we have worked hard to ensure that the common themes are being shared. Are there any comments,questions, or motions? Ostner: I agree in an older part of town this add on effect would work but out there I don't think it will work. I think if the same materials and methods were carried around I think it would really work for our standards and the Planning Commission as a whole. I love hardy plank. I do, I think it is the thing of the future. I said that ten years ago and it is starting to be true. I think it needs to be carried, either all of this or all of that. As the fagade reads on this left elevation I think it needs just a little bit more articulation. This parapet and then switch to stone could be very effective. I don't think we are asking you to do anything other than some excess detail. As she said, some awnings may help you to make this look more like a secondary front than a side is basically how I understand the commercial design standards. I think this left elevation is basically facing the right of way. Church: I think your main entrance is a great looking entrance and I don't think there is going to be any doubt to your customers that that is where they are supposed to go. I think you can do some things with these other walls to articulate them a bit better. Williams: The use of the brick or the split face banding is something that Target did that I think is a nice combination. The continuation of that combination on all four sides is something that we would be interested in. Ostner: Yes,this is very nice, if this was repeated. Bunch: I can't speak for all of the Commission but I can say in general that some of the Commissioners have on other projects in this vicinity looked at all four sides even though they are facing a private parking lot, they are still looking at it as being public view and want a full dress to complete the theme. Your dumpster may need to be camouflaged a little more. The sign looks good. Williams: rFor don't know if it is outside your ordinance but I want to show you this. years we have used neon banding on our building to light it because January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.10 Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 30 the lighting is rather weak, they light a small area but it is just accent lighting to the building. We have used neon for years as the actual banding to show the building up. The reason we started designing our light package with this new lighting that takes the place of neon is because this is actually what it is. It is plastic encased and has a transparent cover. The fuse is in here, basically this is your bulb and your exposed light source. The light source is actually back here and they shine through giving it a softer appearance and they show through and that gets rid of a lot of the flicker. That is the thing with neon, a lot of people don't like it and there are a lot of ordinances against it but this doesn't have any of those properties. It is really taking the place of neon in many applications. I wanted to show that to you because we are very excited to have that as an accent to show the building off. Edwards: I don't see if in here but I feel like neon is forbidden in our Design Overlay District but I will double check that. Williams: I wasn't sure if it was or not. Bunch: Check for banding. _Church: I think wediscussed that too when we did Bizy's and that was an exception. Bunch: That is in the city as opposed to the Design Overlay District. Williams: This is not a strong, flashy, bright light like you have the concept of neon being and that is why it is taking the place of neon. Church: Where would it go? Williams: It goes right at the top of the parapet here at the arch and typically there is aline ii there and.what wouldbe a line right at the top of this here. Bunch: If Sara would research that for us. Williams: It would be in the areas where we have the masonry wall. Bunch: Can you recall anyone in that vicinity that uses that technique? Church: Not in that area. The only thing I can think of is Bizy's that has the neon on the outside of the building. Williams: I don't think I have heard of Bizy's. January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.11 Subdivision Committee April 17, 2003 Page 31 Church: It is a local restaurant. Bunch: As far as the Overlay District I don't think we have any. Ostner: I am pretty sure that the Olive Garden and a couple of others use up lights in the landscaping. Bunch: It is a very good question. Thank you for meeting the sign criteria. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-25.00 to the full Planning Commission. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I concur. January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.12 SES SM ENHANCEMEWSERVICES,INC.. 3699 West Lathrop•South Bend,Indiana 46628•(888)660-1298 •Fax(574)237-6166 January 4, 2005 Planning Commission Municipality of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RR: O'Charleys Restaurant Signage Proposal Dear Chairman& Members of the Commission: O'Charley's Restaurant located at 3467 North Shiloh Drive is respectfully requesting approval to allow an additional wall sign in lieu of a ground sign, and a second band of LED around the property. This property is allowed one (1) wall sign per street frontage not to exceed twenty percent(20%) of the wall or two hundred (200) square feet. They are also allowed a freestanding monument sign with six foot overall height not to exceed seventy-five (75) square feet. Currently this property has two (2) wall signs, each sign is a total of forty-seven (47) square feet. They also have one (1) band of thin green neon around the property. O'Charley's is proposing a wall sign on the north rear elevation of the building. This site has a unique orientation. I t has hard corner exposure, yet the rear of the building is orientated as such so that it has exposure to motorists traveling along Steele Boulevard. It also has an access drive directly behind it. Motorists traveling along this corridor want and need a wayfinding tool to safely locate the O'Charley's property. Without this notification motorist attempting to locate the property will easily miss the access drive which lets into the O'Charley's parking lot. After missing this access drive motorist then would have to maneuver through the intersection of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The added time on the road and increase in maneuvers necessary to access the O'Charley's location will lead to a decrease in traffic safety. The sign we are proposing is consistent with the existing signs on the property both aesthetically and in size. We are allowed a monument sign at this location. O'Charley's proposal will eliminate the need for a monument sign, which reduces visual clutter. At no point can any more than two (2) signs be seen at one time. Based on the unique orientation of the building and roadways we respectfully ask for approval of the proposed wall sign. January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) 1 Page 1.13 O'Charley's is also respectfully seeking approval to allow a second band of LED for this property. Currently the property has only one band of neon. O'Charley's restaurants have been using a standardized branding for their properties all across the country. Part of these nationwide standards is that the buildings have two (2) bands of nLED's. Aesthetically this ties a lot of the architectural features of the building together. The second band of LED is in no way obtrusive to the public. In fact, it ties the entire sign program of this location together, and we respectfully ask for approval of the proposed LED band. O'Charley's understands that the decision for approval must be based on set criteria the first being the unusual conditions/circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands structures, or buildings in the same district. As previously mentioned the building has a unique orientation to the roadways. The proposed wall sign will allow motorists traveling on Steele Boulevard to locate the property and have enough reaction time to safely enter the parking lot on the access drive. Without this notification motorist traveling along the arterial roadway cannot safely locate the site to make the proper vehicular maneuvers to access the property. After passing the access road motorists will then have to maneuver though a busy intersection of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The increase driving time and vehicular maneuvers necessary to enter the property promotes poor traffic safety. Another unusual condition of the building involved is the building itself. This is a standard design that is used throughout the country. Part of this standard design is that each property has two (2) bands of green LED around the property. These LED bands tie the entire sign program of this location together. The second criteria states that a literal interpretation of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The ordinance states that one(1) wall sign per street frontage may be permitted. The north elevation of this property does have exposure to the street frontage, as well as the access drive that runs right in front of it. Other properties are enjoying the benefits of proper exposure to their main arterial roads whether it is in the form of freestanding signs or wall signs. O'Charley's is simply asking for the same opportunity. The third criteria are that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions and circumstances are in now way a result of the applicant. When O'Charley's purchased this property they did so hoping that they would be able to have proper exposure to motorists trying to locate the property. Other properties are currently enjoying the benefits of exposure. O'Charley's is simply asking for the same opportunity. The fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The goal of allowing variances is to provide relief to properties that have unique situations. Other properties do not have the unique orientation of the building in regards to the roadways. Where our proposed wall sign is .January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Z Page 1.14 to be located has exposure to motorists traveling on Steele Boulevard and the access road directly behind the property. Granting this variance will not cause a domino effect because this property does have unique conditions that are only found on this property/business. The fifth criteria are that the reason stated above justify the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure. The architecture of this building is a standardized design used throughout the country. Our proposal to allow the second band of neon serves to keep this consistency of this property to mirror others throughout the country. This parcel is zoned commercial yet without adequate exposure to motorists traveling along these arterial corridors this property will never reach its maximum potential as a commercially zoned parcel. Approval of this variance is the minimum amount of relief necessary to allow this parcel to reach its maximum zoning potential. The final criteria is that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Design Overlay District, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of our proposal will only serve to increase traffic safety by providing motorists a wayfinding tool to safely access the property. The purpose of the Design Overlay District is to provide guidelines for businesses while promoting to maintain aesthetics in the community. Our proposal has eliminated the need for a monument sign that is in public view while maintaining the wayfinding needs for our customers. Approval of this proposal will allow O'Charley's to stay consistent in regards to the standards of their building(LED band proposal), and also reduce the amount of visual clutter along these roadways by eliminating the need for a monument sign. Today we have demonstrated justifications and satisfied all of the criteria for approval of our proposal. The uniqueness of the property's orientation requires adequate exposure that address motorists traveling on Steele Boulevard as well as the access road that fronts the property. Today, we have expressed the unique hardships of this location and we respectfully request your approval for the minimum amount of relief necessary for this business to operate at its potential and ensure its place in this community. Sincerely, Ryan Kring Zoning Specialist Site Enhancement Services January 24,2005 Planning Commission ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's Sign Appeal) 3 Page 1.15 ryL 0.�Pro�L 51 ��an 6 SAW GUT AND \ \ + 1220' / 'REMOVE EXISTING 11\` H)F'0VRB AS REGMIIRED. TIE TO ISMSTI CURB AS REQUIRED. MATCH EXISTING R3 \ \ RS* 6�9 e QEVATON$AND SLOPES. �y cuRB BUTTER(Ern) RETE A� AIL SHEET) © \ DDUMP5TER PAD (SEE DETAIL SHE /n\ p ASPHALT PAVEMEt4T fi �i/ SEE WP.SECTION F W/Of F 10'WID X 251 LONG BRICK SCREEN C N/C Op B TRUCK BERTH 2'CHAMFER(TTP) - ENCLO' E,BRI( \ N - -C4I'/ PAD BROOM FINISH MATCH BUILDIN6m (5EE DETAIL SHE EN r UNIY EASEMT O' •. \117-47) 5, (PI M � 1211 FREEZER COOLER IIq AMD 101 5'OP NS ASWALT P, Z II LOT Om .'12 TYPE FINISH 7a w CONCRETE SI TYPE PROTO5 TYPE (SFE DETNL ANT - .BREVEL V CONSTRUCTION y Si 266 5 ,'. g h � F.F.E.E.= 121 1210.0.0 d D�Aaz �L ( n, P) `1'j BIKE RACK 3 REP. (SEE DETAIL SHEET) LOT 7A 55,301 SOFT. ANDSCAPE ARE CONCRETE SIDEWALK, 1,2695 ACRES L BROOM FINISH(TYP) II (` DETAIL SHEE (SEE DETAIL SHEET) / ' II + Hl'C MP RA ('ryp) AIL SHy .. + (SEE DETEET) yN .W/ A INC Q. _ TIE TO EXI. . - REQUIRED. 3'SLOT IN R3' R25' ELEVATIOP CURB + O O SAWCUT A 4 3 EXISTING C w YP' �L + ® ® 3155' 3 y CAS EASEMENT R3, _(PLAT RECORD 329-139) "VAN ONLY"H/C PARKINS SIGN - f DETAIL SHEF WC PARKING SIGN(TYP)- (TYP)(SEE DETAIL SHEET) y /�HALi d11Tf.WAY 4�TERITyP)(SEE DETAIL SHEtT) (SEE DETAIL SHEET) 65PHgLLpA � TIE TO EX151 SEE DETAIL SHEET - _ I .• R3' SEE TIP.SECTION R3' EELEEVART ON5 t ( TT ' IDE POS D ®+ TI N HTYP 12 a • I 5AW{.UT AND R EXISTING CURB _+ S PEOUIRED. ' - 50'INIIDNG`eSEMACIK -- (16.12' b®9'=540'— q1 - - - - - - - — 2®9'= iDb1 - - - - - PROVIDE 24"WIDE UTI'EASEMENT nN� S TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS y1 �p,yy]j (PLAT RECORD 17-47) N en TO BE IN5TALLED AT BASE �'•�1 v"".+�' "" n OF ALL rumps,WP. [rH, an ar 2005 n — S B9'24'O9'W 181.72' �4 TT�� Pia o Sion _S 6f CONCRETE 51DEWALK, EXISTING SIDEHMM 05-1375(O'Z"rar ey s n ppea BRIE-FIN151i-(TEP) p g.e p (51E DETAIL SHEET) -- -- -� +5� �•1'6 – — TIE TO 6(15TIN6 DNUMVNT N -- --— C ADM 05-1375 ViewO�CHARLETS Close Up View f o �_, SUBJECT PROPERTY x ry y b E W Overview Legend ' ME ADM 05-1375 Ovenay Drama Principal Arterial —FLOODWi Y soo YEAR Master Street Plan s3mxa M'nar Artenal — IWYEAR ---LIMIT OF STUDY Mas ter Street Plan collector – – -Baseline Profile Ffee aylExptas y 00 0 Historic collector O Fayetteville. "Yan J'antary 24,2005 Planning Commission •- 0 75 150 ago 450 ADr*95-1375 'Charley's Sign Appeal) Feet Page 1.17 ADM 05-1375 O'CHARLEY�S . One Mile View C-2 RA RA•RSF r RMF.F ,�f 9a C2 0.1 \.F5121_6L ' RRIVATE D0. ;y'2' 4� t\� mYCEemD3 c-1 llmGll!ti Fi;:� `5 Cr1 G r R-A O � 1 ,q Y2Dt�N yR: l - ow iarrE Lva a c.z a l cz 1 / Cm2 DL 0 W:I t v -_.- . ©z = JIS --- t F�,,I . w SUBJECT PROPERTY M� F R-0 CZ AO' Gp 3 c`m p G•1 1�/' a _ I `�k AN4SCHEQR _.' ,x y�.. .> c.1 V AIN Z . J` \ n g ' RSF-0 >K ND' � v A. G2 � tNOWN .:?-^ i 3 i c� INN 56=3��r R-0 LI DR r ><- C2 \e 7 G2 Rs d _ i," C2 ®RA .�F-0 \�S E1 ALICE S� R.o� Rfir' 'yc- �I ,�flt cz Rsrd \ >c RI 7rEwss RT 1E FiSF-0 II RSFd R-0 RSFd JRSFd G2 Ik R-C RSF< J SF4- � RA RMF 2a � R_ 1 RMF 29 RA_I C-2 ¢II a SFd M Mj 1 i 'bi ti+I A'{J4' BYga L APPLEBYRD _ RMF3AF gA t� R-0 RSF4.. h~I�AWPE Rfi'<<� I� 0 f RMF 20. - SP-0\ ay I _ - RA R$F>V A �Rp1F 24 I'YT R-0 RA ¢i Q' FIMFZ9 R-0z RSFd RU .RiY R-0bRO.f M 4 F l. RSFd ' RA - �� �\RT 42• RMF 24 RMt'-24 RMF 24� RMF�24 I II F ,RSFd�—SFd_r RMF 24 I X" F l y 3�/ sF.g RSF-0 RMF74h T=V 1` 6F 10 PRIVATE Pq j \ RMF24 f �ryIF RpFQ yr„ 1' I RSFd RSF�4 ISELY T MEADE nlEAD�MEA RMF 24 ! jai.r BRYL A VE n- z RMF \I RMF 24M '( \ RA m{ a ' 'yl_ I ' f 1 i C�� -_ G2 R -0 RSF�\ RSFd CASSATT ST RINCE_p ¢'__. BOIMERS D 1N QILSAGE LAKEdRI 1 I RSF-0 \ a .. —A STRANGE DIt�Y \ r C55ATf 5r GY I' RMF 24 G1 ter: REYNO1 \ .._✓w� LDS G2 5n Bp OG DR RMF 40 ft-�� r MF 2q R�-0�RSF-0. \ �- 0 lo; _ Overview Legend Boundary Master Street Plan -" P Subject Property I Y Planning Area Master Street Plan ADM 05-1375 ,p000n Freeway/Expressway o Overlay District aassi Principal Medal _ Outside City u®sa Mnor Anenal _ Collector ---= •�••Historic Collector January 24,2005 ®.011 0.2 0.3 0.4 Planning Commission Miles ADM 05-137 (O'Charley's Sign Appeal) Page 1.18 7aye I PC Meeting of January 24, 2005 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner THRU: Jeremy C. Pate, Zoning &Development Administrator DATE: January 19, 2005 RZN 05-1358: Rezoning(CAMILLIERI,405): Submitted by MARIETTA CAMILLIERI for property located at 1208 N. GARLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned C-1,NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.24 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from C-1,Neighborhood Commercial,to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Property Owner: PHIL COLWELL Planner: LEIF OLSON RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Date: January,24,2005 O,Approved O Denied CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Date: February 15,20050"reading if,recommended) O Approved O Denied Comments: BACKGROUND: Property description: The subject property is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of North St. and Garland Ave., in the area commonly know as the Oak Plaza Shopping Center. The site/store is currently vacant and is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial. Surrounding properties are zoned C-1, C-2, RMF-24, and R-0 and are developed with a variety of residential and commercial uses. The primary use established in this area is commercial in nature. K.IReports120051PCReporis101-24-051RZN 05-1358(CamPgieri).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.1 The.applicant proposes to-.operate._a.business-on.tlhe subject.property.that.is_aliowable..ina C72_ . .__ zoning district, but not within a C-1 zoning district. Background. The property containing the shopping center was originally rezoned from R-2 to C-1 in 1967. In subsequent years the parcel has been subdivided and rezoned several times. Currently the subject property is located in between two larger parcels that exist within a C-2 zoning district, and are physically connected as structures. Businesses located in the shopping plaza include Movie Gallery,Book Circus, Rock Bottom Comics, Hogs Breath Eatery, and a Dollar General store. The structure on the lot is physically attached to other commercial structures to the north and south, developed as part of the overall shopping center. It shares parking with other commercial lots in the center zoned C-2. The intersection of Garland Ave. (State Hwy 112) and North St. serves as a large commercial node with an assortment of residential, shopping, banking, restaurant, grocery, and assorted convenience commercial uses located in close proximity to each other, serving the surrounding community. Proposal. The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,to allow for uses more compatible and similar to the uses that surround the parcel. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction Land Use Zoning North Restaurant-Hogs Breath Eatery C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial South Retail—Book Circus C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial East Residential RMF-24 West Parking Lot C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Access to the site is provided by Garland Ave., a minor arterial, and Mt. Comfort Rd., a local street, as identified in the Master Street Plan. Water: The property currently has access to a V water line located at the-rear of the property. Sewer: The site has access to a 6" sewer main located at the rear of the property. Fire: The Fayetteville Fire Department has reviewed the request and has estimated that the response time from Fire Station#2 to the site would be approximately 1 minute for distance of 0.3 miles. Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. K:IReporrsl2oo51PCReportslo1-24-051RZN05-1358.(Camilxeri).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.2 LAND USE PLAN: The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for Community Commercial. Rezoning this property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, is consistent with the land use plan for a commercial use and is compatible with surrounding properties that are similarly zoned C-2. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: The proposed rezoning is consistent with current land use planning objectives and policies and is compatible with adjacent properties in the same district. Surrounding properties are primarily commercial in nature, and largely function within a C-2 district. The property in question lies between two parcels that are zoned C-2,while physically attached with common walls. Rezoning the property to a C-2 district is desirable, in order to promote a consistent, orderly land use and zoning plan. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in order to promote orderly and consistent development patterns. The General Plan 2020 identifies the Guiding Policies for Community Commercial areas as: "centers that are accessible and compatible with adjacent residential development" and "uses within community commercial areas [that] primarily serve residents of Fayetteville." The shopping center in which this parcel is located does serve the community at large, and a consistent zoning district enables a sound approach to redevelopment and reuse of existing structures. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding' Future development with the proposed zoning would not potentially increase traffic accessing onto Mt. Comfort Rd. or Garland Ave. Police— It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police department that an appreciable increase and traffic danger and congestion will not be created by this rezoning request. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. K:IReports120051PC Reports101-24-05TZN 05-1358(Camdieri).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.3 Finding:._, The.proposed..zoning.would_not.substantially..alter..the..population,density.in.... the area. Public service providers have responded accordingly: Police— This rezoning will not substantially alter the population density thereby undesirably increasing the load on police services. Fire— This rezoning is in close proximity to Fire Station#2 and has an adequate response time of 1 minute. Engineering-The property currently has access to a 1"water main and a 6" sewer main located at the rear of the properly. These mains will be sufficient to supply water and sewer service for the site. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1)through(4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1)through(4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable: Finding: N/A K.ftports120051PC Reports101-24-051RM 05-1358(CamiDierii).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 051358(Camillieri) Page 2.4 16L16.DistrictC,l,Neighhorhaad. - 161.17.District C=2,.Thoroughfare Commercial Commercial (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial (A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed primarily to provide District is designed especially to encourage the convenience goods and personal services for functional grouping of these commercial persons living in the surrounding residential enterprises catering primarily to highway areas. travelers. (B) Uses. (B) Uses. (1) Permitteduses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide use by right Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 12 Offices,studios and related services Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 13 Eating places Unit 12 Offices,studios and related services Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping Unit 13 Eating places Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive-in Unit 14 Hotel,motel,and amusement facilities restaurants Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 17 Trades and services (2) Conditional uses. Unit 18 Gasoline service stations&drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation,small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation,large sites Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit I Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 34 Liquor store Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 34 Liquor stores- (2) Conditional uses. Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments - Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit (C) Density. None. Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 32 Sexually oriented business Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments (E) Setback regulations. Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities Front 50 ft. (C) Density. None. Side None (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. Side, when contiguous to a residential 10 ft. (E) Setback regulations. district �j Rear 20 ft. Front 50 ft. (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum Side NoneSide,when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft height limits in C-1 District, provided, however, Rear 20 ft. that any building which exceeds the height of 10 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of (F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building any residential district a distance of one foot for which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set each foot of height in excess of 10 feet. back from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of (G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total exceed six stories or 75 feet in height. area of such lot. (G) Building area. On any lot,the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60%of the total area of such lot. K.IReports120051PC Reports101-24-051RZN 05-1358(Camillieri).doc January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.5 To the City of Fayetteville #6. C0L1 e A. Philip J.tel-is the owner and to my knowledge that there are no plans to sell . B.I wish to put in a shop that requires a C2 zoning status . C.The store will attract potential customer for the other shops and vise versa. This in not a high volume shop . Maybe at most 6 cars for customers at a time . Most times 1 or 2 cars . The store front already has a sign installed. I will replace the plastic cover with the store's name . Very low impact. D. 6"sewer line located outside of the building in back on the east side . #7. A. 1206 and 1210 ,the two joining store fronts are zoned as C2. B. At one time 1206 and 1208 (the space I desire )were the same store . There is a wall dividing the space to make 2 stores . They share the same water meter and the bathroom for 1206 is in the far back on the side of 1208 .Yet 1206 is zoned CZ`, 1208 is zoned Cl . C. I don't see how. D. I don't believe so . E. The present zoning is limiting. January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.6 QUITCI INI DEED Sbgk Mnr ;'L•(i rt C.(.:1 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: FE.') 2. THAT Mary Sue C01WO11------------- CCE e eittgk Pawn,lir�ntor-.. .'' •�f.•..�.. , nitl 'f 1;, r ` J tar aM ie me conaWehtcw o/tM wm N One Dollar and other m�:nwrle ler considerations-------------- - Philip J. Colwell----------- --- Gnn1K—. f do hereby grant..11 and 9uiml.lm unto the said Philip J. Colwell end unto his hmr.and....gm Inrever.the faltoving deunu<d lend.-it-Ste In > Washington-------------- County,St.,,.(Ads..%.to•.rh: , e i \ Part of the Southwest Quarter (SWC) of the Northwest Quarter (NW:) of Section Nine (9) , Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty (30) West described as follows: Beginning at a point which lies 320 feet East and 870.37 feet South of the Northwest corner of said forty (40) acre tract and running thence South 89°44' 36" East 208 feet; thence South 51.23 feet; thence North 89°44' 36" hest 208 feet; thence North 51.23 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10,658 square feet or 0.244 acres, more or less, City of Fayetteville, Washington Coanty, Arkansas. Together with all appurtenances thereto, including but not limited to, all rights reflected in that Real Estate Contract dated June 13, 1964, between J. Austin Parish and Ethel -R. Parish,which Real as sellers, and Super Market Developers, Inc. , as buyer, ate Co 't is recorded in Record Book 622 at Page46and following in.the Of >, of the Circuit Clerk and Ex-Officio Ree.,....=r for Wn sh-rnvtoa oen Arkansas. - �y alnjeugis sauea)iddy V-;i-[J csS - 136Y 1NVO[Iddb 3H1 A0 43111W ns sd I2�_4 zoo`( 1 o3NOZ38 38 01 IdH3d0ad V, 118.1HX3 To h.re"in in hold the is unto the said Philip pn. Colwell-----heirs and.avgn>.lum.cr. his .ah all appune nenc<. thereunto belonpng day ur January Iv WITNESS my hand arW sad on this )) A C K NO W LC O G M[MT (1 983 , 1 STATE OF ARKANSAS I S JJ .SJJ Washington.e. R REE an o m OF Mar,my -- 1 RE MEMBERED.That thn dcame Mar,the undersigned,• Notary Public 1 ----------- ----- within and for the County aforesaid.duly commiaiuned end ulmg 1 Mary sue Colwell------ ---------------- -__ -__-________ t6 �eR\noon a.,h<Grantor m 1M lore[ang Deed, red some Mat ---she— >therern memion<d and+m forth. the i.me far the eamudnnwa end purpo+e / d+..•1 rtpWeolwL. end wet n wcA Notary Public this 1 s Sees --- be-JanUary-------------- 1979 ` �,� Y /P-*;., t.paelGa.r, WAarY F' ' L '' ,S / �c X L— Al ley L January 24 Planning Comm RZN 05-1358(Carni Cit. Pa N d d O 00 T m NN N q .X a C a rs 3 v. r= *:5 d O N O E a P m rc aLL. UN2m {A w N O N O Nca O N N V E a T o" n`. m a r w m a a E d m' m E 15 o c a E m aN0 0 CL C y N m a � a E CD u `'• c d 7 C L 2 Q N . N M d V C N y O N VI 2 LL a~N+ C ID N E � Q C d L N li y d � 'j Q d d O LLL V m _ N a E U) ca U 00M M d � Z January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2.8 FAYETTEVILLE FpVE E ppLICF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS POLICE DEPARTMENT 99BANSQ`� January 13, 2005 RGCE/VED Dawn Warrick JAN Zoning and Development Director n '_ City of Fayetteville PLANNING DIV 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed RZN 05-1358 Rezoning (Camillieri, 405) submitted by Marietta Camillieri for property located at 1208 N. Garland would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. Sincerely, 1 Cv � Lieutenant Willr Brown Fayetteville Police Department January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES)POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCINIRI " 72701 P.O.BOX 1988 JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE: 479587-3555 FAX:479-587-3522 ORDINANCE NO. 159 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION R92-3 FOR A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GARLAND AVENUE AND NORTH OF MT. COMFORT ROAD (IN OAK PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER) AT 1220 N. GARLAND. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYE7TEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: R92-3 for the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. From C-1 , Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2 , Thoroughfare Commercial District. Section 2. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED AND APPROVED this Ath day of February ; 1992. APPROVED: By Mayo ATTEST: City Cl rk January 24,2005 Planning Commission RZN 05-1358(Camillieri) Page 2,10