Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-14 - Agendas - Final Ivve c - W 125 W. Mountain St. a ARKANSAS Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telenhone:(479)575-8267 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVII. LE, ARKANSAS AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISION Monday,February 14,2005, 5:30 p.m. Room 219,City Administration Building The following items will be considered: Approval of Minutes from the 11/24/04, 1/13/05 and 1/24/05 meetings. Consent. 1. ADM 05-1400: (SOUTHERN VIEW II PZD): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL&ASSOCIATES INC.- ROGERS for property located at NE OF HWY 62W AND 1-540 CORRIDOR. The request is to approve an extension of the approved Southern View 1I PZD project. Planner:JEREMY PATE Old Business: 2. 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 New Business: 3. PPL 05-1368: (UNIVERSITY VILLAGE CENTER,599): Submitted by STEVE/CRAFTON,TULL& ASSOC.BEAM for property located at THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND BEECHWOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2,THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 7.45 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat for a commercial development with 4 lots proposed. Planner:JEREMY PATE 4. PPL 05-1377:(HANCOCK ESTATES,323): Submitted by N.ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at SALEM ROAD TO RUPPLE ROAD,N OF MT COMFORT. The property is zoned RSF-4;RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY—4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 15.20 acres. The request-is to approve a residential . subdivision with 47 single family lots proposed. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN 5. CUP 05-1364: (CHILDERS,524): Submitted by BARBARA CHILDERS for property located at 480 HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RMF-24,MULTI FAMILY-24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to approve a tandem lot. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN 6. CUP 05-1369: (NORTH ST.CHURCH OF CHRIST,362): Submitted by HIGHT-JACKSON ASSOC. P.A. for property located at MT. COMFORT ROAD,WEST OF I-540. The property is zoned RSF-4,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 16 acres. The request is to approve the use of a Church(Use Unit 4)in the Zoning District. Property Owner: JOHN DOCKERY Property Owner: RANDY&TRISH MIDDLETON Planner:LEIF OLSON Submitted on behalf of. NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST 7. ANX 05-1365: (WILKINS,245): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE ADJACENT NORTH BOUNDARY OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS,PHASE I. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.00 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Property Owner: GN Development,LLC Planner:SUZANNE MORGAN 8. RZN 05-1366: (WILKINS,245): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at EAST OF SALEM ROAD,NORTH OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned R-A,RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,and contains approximately 10.00 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family,4 units per acre. Property Owner: GN Development,LLC Planner:SUZANNE MORGAN 9. ANX 05-1370: (HALL,644,645,684): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 2577,2216,2844,2822 DEADHORSE MTN.ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 235.38 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Property Owner: IMOGENE HALL - Property Owner: MARILYN JOHNSON HEIFNER Property Owner: SCOTT&SYRONA SCOTT Property Owner: JOHNNY&MELISA CARPER Planner:JEREMY PATE 10. RZN 05-1371: (HALL,645,684): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at 2577 DEAD HORSE MTN.ROAD. The property is zoned R-A,RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 125.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property RSF4,Residential Single-family,4 units per acre. Property Owner: IMOGENE HALL Planner:JEREMY PATE 11. RZN 05-1378: (GOFF/HALL,644): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE S SIDE OF HWY 16E,W OF DEAD HORSE MTN.RD. The property is zoned R-A,RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 15.12 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4,Residential Single- family,4 units per acre. Property Owner:DEWITT GOFF Planner:JEREMY PATE 12. RZN 05-1372: (MAILCO USA INC.,678-717): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at S. SCHOOL AVENUE,E OF HWY.71 AND N OF WHILLOCK STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.536 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial. Property Owner: KATHY FERGUSON Planner:SUZANNE MORGAN 13. RZN 05-1374: (CORNERSTONE/FUTRALL,402): Submitted by KIM FUGITT for property located at 1144 FUTRALL DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF4,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.53 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R-O,Residential Office. Submitted on behalf of: LINDY LINDSEY 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 parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing 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. 2005 Planning Commissioners Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Candy Clark James Graves Christine Myres Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught ye PC Meeting of February 14, 2005 ARKA N$.AS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Interim Current Planning Director DATE: February 09, 2005 ADM 05-1400: (SOUTHERN VIEW II PZD): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL& ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at NE OF HWY 62W AND I-540 CORRIDOR. The request is to approve an extension of the approved Southern View II PZD project. Planner: JEREMY PATE BACKGROUND Project Description: The approved R-PZD is to construct a mixed-use project with 114 multi- family residential units with 186 bedrooms and 40,398 SF of retail/office space on 6.71 acres. Background: The original R-PZD for this site was recommended for approval to the City Council with a 6-1 vote by the Planning Commission in January of 2004, with all conditions as stated by Staff. The City Council approved R-PZD 04-01.00 on February 17, 2004 as reflected in the attached Ordinance No. 4543. The applicant has submitted all required fees and other initial construction plans to obtain building permit approvals for all of the construction for the subject property. Grading for the property has occurred, and the building permits are under review by various divisions. Due to the mixture of uses within each building, construction standards and regulations vary from typical multifamily residential development, thus the delay in obtaining all necessary permits. Proposal: The applicant requests to extend the approval of the Planned Zoning District development plans for one year, to expire on February 17, 2006. All permit are required to be obtained prior to the one-year deadline,measured from the date of final approval. If this is not possible, the Unified Development Code allows for a one-time extension request to be made to the Planning Commission, if submitted prior to this deadline. Should this extension be granted, all permits are required to be issued before the one-year extended deadline. RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of ADM 05-1400, the requested extension to the R-PZD 04-01.00, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be allowed until February 17, 2006 to receive all required building K:Weports120051PCRepor1s102-14-05WDM05-1400 (Sou(hern View//PZD Extension).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) Page 1.1 permits. If,at this time, all permits required have not been issued, appropriate actions to revoke the Planned Zoning District approvals shall be taken. 2. All other conditions of approval for the project shall remain applicable. DISCUSSION The Unified Development Code gives the Planning Commission authority to extend approval of a planned zoning district one additional year if the applicant requests the extention prior to the one year time limit and shows good cause why the tasks could not reasonably be completed within the normal one year. It is within this time that the applicant shall receive all permits and approvals as required by City, State, and Federal regulations to start construction of the development or project. The applicant's representative states in the attached letter that due to the time taken to finalize construction plans for the multi-use buildings, all permits have not been obtained within the one-year time frame.No ordinance amendments that would potentially affect this project have been passed since the City Council approval of the subject R-PZD 04-01.00. The UDC allows a three year period from the date of issuance of a building permit to the receipt of a final Certificate of Occupancy. K.Weports12005TCReports102-14-05L4DM 05-1400 (Southern View 11 PZD Extension).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) Page 1.2 CHAPTER 166: DEVELOPMENT be completed within the normal one (1) 166.20 Expiration Of Approved Plans year limit. And Permits Expiration. If the required task(s)are not (A) Applicability. The provisions of this completed within one (1) year from the section apply to all of the following plans date of approval or during an allowed and permits: extension period, all of the above- enumerated plans and permits shall be (1) Prelimm- Tats; rendered null and void. (3) Conditional uses; (C) Three-year time limit. (4) Large-scale developments; (5) Lot splits; (1) Tasks to be complete. All of the above- (6) Physical alteration of land permits; enumerated plans and permits are also (7) Storm water,drainage,and erosion control conditioned upon the applicant completing permits; the project and receiving final inspection (8) Tree preservation plans; (9) Sign permits;and, approval and/or a final Certificate of (10) Floodplain development permits. Occupancy permit within three (3) years from the date of issuance of a Building (B) One-year time limit. Permit. (1) Tasks to be completed. All of the above- (2) Extensions. Prior to the expiration of the enumerated plans and permits are three(3)year time limit,an applicant may conditioned upon the applicant request the Planning Commission to accomplishing the following tasks within extend the three (3) year period to one(1)year from the date of approval: complete the project by up to two (2) , additional years. The applicant has the (a) For any renovation or new burden to show good cause why the construction, receive a building proj ect could not reasonably be completed permit; and/or, within the three(3)year time limit. (b) For a lot split, record a deed or survey at the Washington County (3) Expiration. If the applicant fails to meet Circuit Clerk's Office, the requirements of subsection (C)(1) stamped for recordation by the City within three (3) years from the date of Planning Division;and/or, issuance of a.Building Permit or during an (c) Receive a Certificate of Zoning allowed extension period,all ofthe.above- Compliance;and/or, enumerated plans and permits shall be (d) Receive all permits and approvals rendered null and void.. required by City, State, and Federal regulations to start construction of the development or project. (2) Extensions. Prior to the expiration of the one(1) year time limit, an applicant may request the Planning Commission to extend the period to accomplish the tasks by up to one (1) additional year. The applicant has the burden to show good cause why the tasks could not reasonably K.IReportr12005TCRepomIO2-14-05WDM 05-1400 (Southern View 11 PZD Eztewion).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) Page 1.3 Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N.47th Street,Suite 200, Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4638 Fax:479.631.6224 www.craftuU.com 4� February 4, 2005 Mr. Jeremy Pate City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Southern View Phase 11 LSDP Extension CTA Job No. 021081-01 Dear Jeremy: On behalf of Lindsey Management Company, we are requesting a 1-year time extension of the Large Scale Development Plan for the project. Dirt work for the project has been completed and building permits applications have been sent to your office for review at this time. This was a different type of structure than a typical apartment building so it took more time to complete the design and get the costs under control. It is the intent to get permits within the next few weeks and start construction, however we might as well request the typical 1-year extension. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Very Truly Yours, Grafton, Tull &Associates, Inc. Jerry Kelso, P.E. Vice President February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) A r c h i t e c t s E n g i n e e r s & S u r v e y.Pi�ge JA s ORDINANCE NO. 4543 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED(R-PZD 04-01.00) LOCATED ON FUTRALL DRIVE AND OLD FARMINGTON ROAD EAST OF I-540 CONTAINING 6.713 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial to R-PZD 04-01.00 as shown in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan and development standards as shown on the plat and approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2004. Section 3. That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the development plan have been met. Section 4. 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 the 17th day of February, 2004. APPR ED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor By: rv'-A� SO DRA SMITH, City Clerk FhfE ,t r f� February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) �d0 ! , Page 1.5 EXHIBIT"A" R-PZD 04-01.00 PART OF THE SETA OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NEIA OF THE SEI/4 OF SECTION 18, T-16-N, R-30-W, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ATA POINT AT THE SE CORNER OF THE SEI/4 OF SECTION 18, T-16-N, R-30-W, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND IRON PIN;THENCE N 87'11'35"W 225.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY 71 BYPASS (NOW INTERSTATE 540); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES:N 10°43'38"W 44.34 FEET;THENCE N 67°02'38"W 42.40 FEET;THENCE N 41°41'38" W 74.30 FEET;THENCE N 290 10'38"W 402.99 FEET;THENCE N 20'18'34"W 214.21 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S 87°06'32"E 624.58 FEET; THENCE S 02047'10"W 648.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 6.713 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, BEING SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR OF FACT. BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE BASED ON CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE GPS COORDINATE SYSTEM. i February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) Page 1.6 ,1 FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of January 12, 2004 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113W. Mountain St -- - Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate,Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick,A.I.C.P.,Zoning&Development Administrator DATE: January 06, 2004 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District(Southern View II, pp 519)was submitted by Crafton,Tull&Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road,east of I-540. The property is currently zoned C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.713 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for a mixed use development comprised of 114 dwelling units and 40,398 SF.of commercial space proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate Proposal: The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District on 6.71 acres currently zoned C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial, directly south of the constructed Southern View Phase I multi- familydevelopment. The applicant requests a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a mixed use development consisting of six buildings. Each of the proposed buildings will contain 6,733 SF of retail space, 14 2-Bedroom dwelling units and 3 1-Bedroom units. Proposed Development: R-PZD, Residential Planned ZoningDistrict #of Parking Land Use Square Feet #of Units Bedrooms Required Bldgs 1-6 Commercial/Retail 6,733 SF N/A N/A 27 spaces Bldgs 1-6 Multi-Family Residential aces N/A 12 24 24 s 2-Bedroom p Bldgs 1 6 Multi-Family Residential 1 -Bedroom N/A 7 7 7 spaces Individual Mixed-Use Total Retail/Multi-family 6.733 SF Retail 19 31 58 spaces Residential TOTAL Mixed-Use (x 6 Bldgs) Retail/Multi-family 40,398 SF Retail 114 186 348* Residential *The applicant proposes 302 parking spaces, which is within the 30%+/-ordinance requirement. Total proposed dwelling units on the 6.71 acres numbers 114, therefore the proposed density for then-PZD is 16.9 DU/acre. KlReparts120041PCReportsl0l-12-0418-PA04-01.00 f8outhern VtewllJ.do - February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View 11) Page 1.7 Access: The development is proposed to have four means of access,two from Old Farmington Road,one from Futrall Drive and one from the existing Southern View Phase I development to the north.A pedestrian access has been added from the existing Southern View I apartments, pursuant to Subdivision Committee discussion. A formal waiver request for the Design Overlay District requirement of 250 feet between an intersection and a curb cut has been submitted by the developer. Staff is,in support of the request for the proposed curb cuts along Old Farmington Road. The two entrances fulfill the intent of providing an enhanced"Main Street" streetscape, along with providing needed parking in the "rear"to meet ordinance requirements. Access on both sides of the building is desirable for fire protection and emergency vehicles. Buildings and parking in the development have been situated to create a desirable, pedestrian- oriented streetscape along the.two primary entrances east from Futrall Drive and north from Old Farmington Road. Parallel parking and 10-foot wide sidewalks are incorporated with the primary interior streets, and the majority of parking is located to.the rear of the structures. Additionally;a landscape buffer is proposed along.Futrall Drive to ameliorate the impacts of proposed parking lots. Elevations of the proposed structures have been submitted for Planning Commission review. The development is proposed to be under single ownership, with dwelling units rented and retail space leased. All interior streets, landscaping, common areas and buildings will be maintained by the developer. Existing Development: The site is currently vacant. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Southern View Phase I RMF-18, Res. Multifamily, 18 DLI/acre Multi-family dwellings South Sines AutoBody Shop C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial East Fayetteville Public Schools P-1,Institutional West Futrall Drive, I-540 N/A Water&Sewer: Water and sewer lines are available to the site. Phasing: Phase lines are shown in bold on the site plan,dividing the project construction into two phases, the first of which will incorporate all street infrastructure, landscaping, sidewalks and buildings 2 and 5. Street Improvements Proposed: Improvements to Old Farmington Road a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb& gutter, pavement etc. Six-foot sidewalks are required to be constructed along both Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Futrall Drive (Collector), minimum of 35 feet from centerline; Old Farmington Road(Local), minimum of 25 feet from centerline K.IReports110041PCReports101-12-0418-PZ)04-OL00(Southern Viewll).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View II) Page 1.8 Tree Preservation: There are no existing trees on-site. Design Overlay District • Greenspace: The applicant has complied with the 25'greensp'ace requirement along the rights-of-way. • Signage: Monument Sign: The applicant is indicating one(1)monument sign along Old Farmington Road,to be compliance with DOD requirements. All sign illumination is to utilize indirect lighting. Wall Sign: Wall signage is to be determined by tenant occupancy of the leased Commercial/Retail space- Two wall signs may be installed per business(two right-of-way frontages), not to exceed 20%of that wall area or 200 SF,whichever is less. • Curb Cuts: The applicant requests a waiver of the 250 feet required from an.intersection to a curb cut. The original lot configuration does not have adequate depth to satisfy the DOD requirement. Staff is in support of this request. • Lighting: The applicant shall comply.with the requirement for 35-foot maximum height, utilizing full out-off lighting fixtures that are shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread not to reflect into the adjacent properties. • Exterior appearance: Elevations have been submitted for all four sides of the building. Planning Commission determination of architectural treatment of fronts, along with Commercial Design Standards, is required. Building Material: Materials samples have been submitted, indicating the proposed brick colors, etc. Site Coverage: Approximately 31%of the site has been left in open.space. 0 Fencing: Fencing is not proposed with this development. • Outdoor Storage: N/A Access: Pedestrian access is being provided with new 6-foot sidewalks along Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road, Bicycle racks are being provided within the development,as are 10-foot sidewalks along buildings to allow for spillover and outdoor shopping space. KIReports120041PCReports101-12-041R-PID'04-01-00(Sowhern Yrewll).Aoc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View 1I) Page 1.9 Background- The proposal was fust heard at Technical Plat Review on May 28,2003 and in subsequent meetings tabled by staff due to concerns with site development plans. The proposal was resubmitted and heard at Technical Plat Review on December 17,2003.The revisions produced from that meeting and a subsequent meeting with staff were presented before the Subdivision Committee on December 30,2003. Discussion at that meeting included breezeways between buildings, "placemaking"on the empty corner between Blds 3&4, trees along the"Main Street",pedestrian access to Southern View 1,and graphic treatment of the building elevations. Recommendation: Forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning to R-PZD 04-01.00. Planning Commission approval of the proposed Large Scale Development plan R-PZD 04- 01.00 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district R-PZD 04-01.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. An.ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards.Stafffinds the structures fully meet all aspects of Commercial Design Standards_ *Addition to Condition w/Planning Commission approval: No two facades shall be constructed next to or across from one another. The end facades shall be addressed to more fully comply with Commercial Design Standards. The tower element shall not be used more than three times within the development. 4. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the proposed building within the 100-foot setback of the 100-year water surface elevation of the proposed retention pond. Staff is in support of this'request. - 5. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the Design Overlay District requirement of 250 feet between an intersection and a curb cut, along Old Farmington Road. Approximately I 10 feet is the proposed distance from the Futrall Drive intersection to the first entrance curb cut along Old Farmington Road.Staff is in support of the waiver request. 6. All setbacks, protective easements, and designated uses are binding with the approval of the R-PZD. Submitted building elevations are likewise binding to the project. 7. An AHTD permit is required for any work done within the Highway Department right-of- K.'IReports120041PCReportsl0l-12-0418-PID 04-01.00(Southern Viewtl).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View 1I) Page 1.10 way- 8. 8. Street improvements to Old Farmington Road shall include 14 feet from centerline including curb,gutter,pavement and 6-foot sidewalks. Six-foot sidewalks are also required along Futrall Drive, at the right-of-way line. 9: No fences shall be allowed within the utility easements along Futrall Drive and.Old Farmington Road. .10. All parking lot lights are to be shielded,directed downward and away from adjacent properties utilizing full cut-off sodium lighting fixtures_ 11. All signage shall comply with Design Overlay District requirements. 12. All trash enclosures shall be screened from view with materials that are compatible with and complementary to the proposed buildings. 13. All utilities shall be screened with materials complementary to the proposed buildings. 14. Each building shall be constructed to provide a mixture of facades as viewed from surrounding drives and streets. 15. The building permit process for Phase II of the current proposal shall begin within one(1) year from the final Certificate of Occupancy issued for Phase 1. Standard Conditions of Approval: 16. Plat Review and Subdivision comments(to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative,and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 17. Staff approval of final detailed plans;specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading,drainage, water, sewer,fire protection,.streets(public and private); sidewalks, parking lot(s)and treepreservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 18. Payment of parks fees in the amount of$40,086 shall be required prior to building permit. Prior to R-PZD approval, this amount shall be considered and approved by City Council to meet ordinance requirements for over 100 residential units (scheduled for the February 03, 2004 meeting). 19. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. K IReporaLI004WCReports101-12-041R-PZ)04-01.00(Southern l iew/!).doc - February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View 1I) Page 1.11 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: January 12,2004 Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date K-1Repor i20041PCReporisl0l-12-0418-PID 04-01.00(Southern l rewllJ.doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1400(Southern View 11) Page 1.12 Pz°° V Close Upp View iSOUTHERN VIEW 11 View - :\ ,! t � F` \`RMF-18 �.. I Ilk IPA } P-1 Xk F 1 � 1 t i a i— aMt aro RD ' -- Z - --- ----- - �. --------- iMRD— k, R0— 1 1%1 ^-2 I r, All P Overview Legend ®RWOWAY 000S°`mlaY DisVic[ Master StMet PWn 1 ®1W YEAR Master Street Plan Fre aYlExpma 4 Ny' �G SOO YEAR PMW4 Arial •Citpl z —UMITOFSWDY ®Mi�rorAtlenal - - e.dmP fw Collxbr L_J D r ` ®R-YID00.01.00 •ee Hiabrk Collecbr .•�' � - ��-PlaivYrq Area CRY Gn February 14,2005 G A 05-1400(Southern View II) o- �s 1so aoo aso 600 Page 1.13 - neMile ie SOUTHERN VIEW 11 One Mile View 11 U1 . II RIM I, I I F I I I r_ ; I AIS5,lB9 —�E1.53D��� III RSFd FVANGAtIN C i y RA IRA ; mo Nil , i 11 � �RATT I� � RA -- c G2 C \ I t I %W-24 r R � RA�2c�Gp��. - ' RSF4 RSFJC"2 -2f 2 i G1 RMF ' Q C2 G2 R% G2 RAIRSFG� I 41 WRIVA'"� \\ // Rd 42 G2 G2 CM) Rv� , ".k 'Y I PRNAI Oft I RA�an aA 33 I - u n r ! GZ. RA. 2{I RA 8R '., f c I li RA I 1 • I u I -SS _ is I G2 ^� SFjI RSFI i II I RO i 6R 4k 1 62 _r asr-w— - RA MFnND I RMF-sa�iIaMF¢c + tc 111 ;1T��-- RMF za 'RSF-1 Overview - Legend - - - __ Subject Property Boundary Master street Plan R-PZD0401.00 r'N—,Planning Area 'F "aYfEZPresswaY P .cip 1A+.01 - Streets 400000°Overlay District _ Minor Arterial Existing L_ 1 City Limits Outside City ���� Historic Cdlectar February 14,200 0 0.1 0.2 0..4 0.6 0:8 A M 05-1400(Southern View I% I Miles Page 1.1 ADM 05-1375 y17PC Meeting of January 24, 2005 ARKAN2A5 et THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, 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. `Th& 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:IReports120051PCReportv101-24-05WDM05-1375 (OCharley's).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.1 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 casements 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 staff's 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 of this development item. Signature Date K.IReporls120051PCReportsl0F24-05UDM05-1375 (O'Charley's).doe February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.2 ADM 05-1375 Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations 161.24 Design Overlay District(1-540 Highway Corridor) (A) Purpose. The purpose of establishing a Design Overlay District for the 1-540 Highway Corridor is as follows: (1) To protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the I-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) Wallsigns. 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..-IReports12005PCReports101-24-054IDM05-1375 (OCharley's).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.3 ADM 05-1375 (3). Curb cuts. One-curb shall.be.allowedper 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 maybe 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 traitor 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. hi 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:1Reportsl2005PCReports101-24-05WDM05-1375 (OCharley's).doc - February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.4 ADM 05-137S (G)_ Exemptions. (1) Undeveloped of 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(§16121). (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 propertyowners 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. r (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.IReportsUO05PCReporlsl0l-24-05NDM05d375 (OCharley's).doc February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.5 Planning Commiss: May 12, 2003 -PLfttAt116 eoM1l�SS�O� /`�IIN UTES Page 24 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale ,:Development (O'Charley's, pp 212) was subrmtt Edwards and Hotchkiss Architects on behalf of O'Charley's, Inc. for property located=fit.. the northeast corner of Steele Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned-C'z>:xy" Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.27 acres with a 6413 square foot 4' 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 foursides 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 200d' 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 February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.6 Planning Commiss 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 dike to address this LSD 03-25.00, O'Charley's? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments. LED Estes: The lighting band that you just described, can you show us where that is '�?• and is it.static or is it animated? ',',� 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 tha6s 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. February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.7 Subdivision Comm. ,e April 17, 2003 cS'U$'A1U���ON CDP4N�1T�E� lNUTES 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 at 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 detennination 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 not1Previously 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 February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.8 Subdivision Comm, le April 17,2003 Page 28 the building design.This building design is a little more themed than what Olive Garden may be. UC-harley'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 a long 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.P.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 February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.9 Subdivision.Comm 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 drink it needs to be carried, either all of this or all of that. As the fapade 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 han 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. t / Williams: ~I don't know if it is outside your ordinance but I want to show you this. —� For years we have used neon banding on our building to light it because February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(®'Charley's) Page 2.10 Subdivision Comm e 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 it 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 we discussed 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 a line in there.and.what wou "be a line right at the top of t s ere. 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. February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page 2.11 Subdivision Coma, Je 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. February 14,2005 ADM 05-1375(O'Charley's) Page2.12