HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-27 - Agendas - Final FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. -
Fayetteville,AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday, October 27,
2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room
219, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Roll Call
Presentation of recognition and appreciation for Commissioner Estes
The following items will be considered:
Approval of minutes from the October 13,2003 meeting.
New Business:
1. CUP 03-25.00: Conditional Use (Red Robin, pp 174) was submitted by Brent K.
O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property
located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing.
The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The
request is to allow excess parking than that which is allowed for by ordinance. Planner:
Jeremy Pate
2. LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin,pp 174)was submitted by
Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for
property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele
Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03
acres. The request is for the construction of a 6,256 sq. ft. restaurant with 125 parking
spaces proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate
3. VAC 03-11.00: Vacation (Salazar, pp 294) was submitted by Michael and Jill
Salazar for property located at 2721 Shadybrook Cove (Lot 51). The property is zoned
RSF-4, Residential Single-family-4 units per acre. The request is to vacate a portion of a
utility easement along lot 51 of the Brookbury Subdivision. Planner: Jeremy Pate
4. PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat(Stonebridge Meadows Ph.II, pp 608)was
submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows of Meadows Enterprises for
property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Dr. and Goff Farm Rd. The
property is zoned R-A, Residential-Agricultural, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4
units per acre, and contains approximately 59.26 acres. The request is for a residential
subdivision with 154 lots proposed with an adjacent outlot shown for future development
of Phase III and park land. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
5. CUP 03-26.00: Conditional Use (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138)was submitted
by Jorgensen &Associates on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E.
Zion Road. The property is zoned R-O,Residential Office, and contains approximately
7.95 acres. The request is to allow for the expansion of the existing Recreational Facility
in the R-O and C-1 districts. Planner: Jeremy Pate
6. LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club,pp 138) was
submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at
2920 E. Zion Rd. The property is zoned C-1,Neighborhood Commercial, and R-O,
Residential Office. The proposal is to construct a 10,800 sq. ft. gymnasium, a 2,550 sq.
ft. tennis pro shop and 6 full size tennis courts. Planner: Jeremy Pate
7. LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments,pp 136) was
submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Stearns Street
Apartments Limited Partnership for property located at the southwest corner of Vantage
Dr. and Zion Rd. The property is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family 24 units per
acre, and R-O, Residential Office, and contains 23 acres. The proposal is to construct an
apartment complex with 276 units. Planner: Jeremy Pate
8. CUP 03-24.00: Conditional Use(Cliffs Cabin, pp 488) was submitted by Jerry
Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs III Limited Partnership for
property located at 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-
family-4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request is to allow
for a tandem lot. Planner: Jeremy Pate
9. LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split(Cliffs Cabin,pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of
Crafton, Tull &Associates for property located on 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is
zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 36.77 acres. The
request is to split the property into two tracts of 35.21 and 1.56 acres respectively.
Planner: Jeremy Pate
10.LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development(Brandon Mall, pp 135)was submitted
by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon for property
located at the northeast corner of the Northwest Arkansas Mall on Zion Rd. The property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.78 acres. The
request is to develop a 28,350 sq. ft. office building. Planner: Jeremy Pate
11. LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development(Meyers Learning Center, pp 212/213)
was submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Meyer's Pediatric
Learning Center for property located at 3419 Plainview Ave. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres. The request is to construct a 13,000
sq.ft. Educational facility. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
12. VAC 03-12.00: Vacation (Combs St Church of Christ,pp 524) was submitted by
Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Comb
St. The property is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family-24 units per acre and
contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to vacate a utility easement along 4u Street. Planner:
Suzanne Morgan
13. LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development(Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524)
was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property
located at 350 S. Comb St. The property is zoned RMF-24, Residential Multi-family 24
units per acres, and contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to construct a 4700 sq. ft.
expansion of the existing church. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
14. CUP 03-27.00: Conditional Use(Arkansas Oaks,pp. 294)was submitted by Bill
Helmer on behalf of Perry Butcher for property located at 2198 Bridgeport Drive. The
property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family-4 units per acre, and contains
approximately 13.39 acres. The request is to allow continued use of the existing structure
as a construction office. Planner: Jeremy Pate
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 meetings. 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
Bob Estes
Sharon Hoover
Alan Ostner
Loren Shackelford
Christian Vaught
FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of October 27, 2003
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
.125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8267 '..
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick,A.I.C.P., Zoning and Development Administrator
DATE: October 22, 2003
CUP 03-25.00: Conditional Use (Red Robin, pp 174)was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of
McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the
intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-
2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The request is to allow excess parking
than that which is allowed for by ordinance. Planner: Jeremy Pate
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of the accompanying large scale development plan,
with all conditions of approval as stated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: October 27,2003
Comments:
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" listed in this report are accepted in total without
exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use.
Name: Date:
K.IReporu@0031PCREPORTS170-271CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin).doc October 27,20 03
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.1
BACKGROUND:
Property Characteristics. The subject property is located in Lot 17 Subdivision of Steele Crossing,
two lots east of Olive Garden.The property is zoned C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial and planned for
Regional Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan.It is surrounded by commercial uses and zoning,
including the Olive Garden, an approved and recently permitted Mariott Courtyard, and vacant
commercial lots.The site is located in the Overlay District,and has two right-of-way frontages,along
Fulbright Expressway and the as of yet unconstructed Van Asche Drive. Van Asche is slated to be
constructed with the approved Preliminary Plat of Lot 17.
Proposal. The applicant proposes to construct a 6,256 square feet Red Robin restaurant. The
restaurant will have approximately 257 seats with a waiting area for 35 people and approximately 35-
40 employees during a maximum shift. The applicant is proposing a total of 125 parking spaces to
serve customers, waiting patrons and employees. They plan to be open for lunch and dinner seven
days a week and anticipate being at capacity during both lunch and dinner. Shared parking within a
multi-use site is not available in the immediate vicinity, and parking will not be available on Van
Asche Drive, with is to be constructed at 28 feet wide.
Request. The current parking ratio ordinance requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross
floor area. The minimum required for this project is 63 parking spaces(6256/100). The ordinance
allows for a maximum number of parking spaces 30%more than what is required. The maximum
number of spaces permitted for this project is 82 parking spaces (63 x 30%). The applicant is
requesting Planning Commission to approve a total of 125 parking spaces,a conditional use for 43
more spaces that what is permitted by ordinance. An application and site plan for large scale
development approval has been submitted with the proposed parking, and has been reviewed for
compliance with the Unified Development Code.
Supporting Information. The applicant is basing the number of parking spaces on the recommended
number by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers.The applicant finds the physical limitations of the site allow
them to provide 125 spaces. The applicant has indicated that of the 212 Red Robin restaurants
across the country, only approximately 20 have less than 125 spaces immediately available.
Included in the Commissioners'packets are Planning Commission minutes and staffreport from the
July 08, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, at which the Off-street parking ordinance was
amended. The staff report includes a chart reviewing restaurants in Fayetteville that have been
allowed additional parking. Ruby Tuesday's, a recently approved restaurant within the Design
Overlay District and with opportunities for shared multi-use parking, was approved a similar
conditional use for 27 extra spaces(73 allowed,100 permitted). Olive Garden,two lots to the west
of the subject property, was permitted a conditional use for 102 extra spaces (49 allowed, 151
permitted—Olive Garden was approved prior to the current ordinance; under current regulations,
Olive Garden would be permitted 106 spaces, therefore 45 extra spaces would be required).
K.,Reporls120031PC REPORTSI70-271CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.2
LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Vacant C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
South Fulbright Expressway C-2; Thoroughfare Commercial
East Vacant G2, Thoroughfare Commercial
West Vacant Lot, Olive Garden C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Regional Commercial
§163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES.
B. Authority;Conditions. The Planning Commission shall:
1. Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically
authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter.
2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a
conditional use should be granted; and,
3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are
appropriate under this chapter; or
4. Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and
until:
1. A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating the
section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and
stating the grounds on which it is requested.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a written application requesting a total of 125
parking spaces, based on parking ratios recommended by Red Robin.
2. The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required under Chapter 159 to cover
the cost of expenses incurred in connection with processing such
application.
Finding: The applicant has paid the required filing fee.
K.lReportsl2003PCREPOR7SllO-271CUP 03-15.00(Red Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)"
Page 1.3
3. The Planning Commission shall make the following written findings before
a conditional use shall be issued:
(a.) That it is empowered under the section of this chapter described in
the application to grant the conditional use; and
Finding: The Planning Commission is empowered under§172.05.B to grant the
requested conditional use permit.
(b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect
the public interest.
Finding: Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest.
(c.) The Planning Commission shall certify:
(1.) Compliance with the specific rules governing individual
conditional uses; and
Finding: The applicant has complied with specific rules governing this individual
conditional use request.
(2.) That satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been
made concerning the following,where applicable:
(a.) Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or
catastrophe;
Finding: The proposed access to the property utilizes drives that were approved by the
Planning Commission with the Preliminary Plat for Lot 17. Pedestrian access
with a 6-foot sidewalk will be provided along Van Asche drive.
(b.) Off-street parking and loading areas where required,
with particular attention to ingress and egress,
economic,noise, glare, or odor effects of the special
exception on adjoining properties and properties
generally in the district;
Finding: Off-street parking areas are adequately located.
(c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference
to ingress and egress, and off-street parking and
loading,
K.Pxportw0031PC REPORTS110-271CUP 03-15.00(Ped Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.4
Finding: The dumpsters are located just north of the building It is screened and
appears to be appropriately located.
(d.) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability,
and compatibility;
Finding: All utilities are shown to be extended along the south side of Van Asche Drive
in a 30-foot utility easement.
(e.) Screening and buffering with reference to type,
dimensions; and character;
Finding: The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan showing the screening
and landscaping of the parking lot in accordance with Chapter 172 Parking
and Loading,with the Large Scale Development.
(£) Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting with
reference to glare,traffic safety, economic effect,
and compatibility and harmony with properties in
the district;
Finding: Monument signage proposed meets the Design Overlay District
requirements. The applicant is requesting an additional wall sign for the
structure (three are requested,two are allowed)with the Large Scale
Development. Proposed parking lot lighting is indicated to be in compliance
with Design Overlay District requirements.
(g.) Required setbacks and other open space; and
Finding: The project meets the required setbacks for the C-2 district.The front
setback requirement in C-2 is 50'. The applicant is proposing a 160' front
setback from Van Asche and a 25' setback from the Fulbright Expressway
side. By ordinance,front setbacks may be reduce from 50 feet to 25 feet in
the C-2 district if a vegetative planting plan is approved by the Landscape
Administrator. This plan has been recommended by staff.
(h.) General compatibility with adjacent properties and
other property in the district.
Finding: The proposed restaurant is compatible with adjacent properties and other
property in the district.
K.-Repor[rp0031PC REPORTSVO-27ICUP 03-25.00(Red Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.5
From Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale
Fayetteville Unified Development Cade Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 32 Sexually oriented business
161.17 District C-2,Thoroughfare Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments
Commercial Unit 38 Wireless communications facilities
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare (C) Density. None.
Commercial District is designed especially (D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
to encourage the functional grouping of
these commercial enterprises catering (E) Setback regulations.
primarily to highway travelers.
.
ffFn,,, SO ft:(B) Uses. Nonen conn uous to a residential district 15 ft. 11- 20 ft. 11
(1) Permitted uses.
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2
Unit 1 Ci -wide uses b right anbuilding which exceeds the height Unit 4 - Cultural and recreational facilities 3' g of ,
Una 12 Offices,studios and related services 20 feet shall be set back from any
UWM Eatin"::aces boundary line of any residential district a
Unit 14 Hotel motel,and amusement facilities -
Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping g ggoods distance of one foot for each foot of height
Unit 16 shopping oods in excess of 20 feet. No building shall
Unit 17- Trades and services -
Unit 18 Gasoline service stations&drive-in restaurants exceed six stories or 75 feet in height.
Unit 19 Commercial recreation,small sites
Unit 20 Commercial recreation,large sites (G) Building area. On any lot the area
Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar ,
Unit 34 Liquor store occupied by all buildings shall not exceed
60% of the total area of such lot.
(2) Conditional uses.
(Code 1991, §160.036; Code 1965,App.A,Art.
5(VI);Ord.No. 1747, 6-29-89; Ord.No. 1833, 11-1-
Unit 2 Ci -wide uses by conditional use ermit 71; Ord.No.2351,6-2-177; Ord.No.2603,2-19-80;
Unit 3 Public rotection and utili facilities Ord.No.4034, §§3,4,4-15-97)
K.,IReports120031PC REPORTSIIO-271CUP 03-25.00(Red Robrn).doc - October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.6
From Chapter 172 Parking and Loading office
Fayetteville Unified Development Code Medical/Dental office 1 per 260 sq.ft.of GFA
11 Professional office 1.per 300 sq.ft.of GFA
Sales office -1 2er 200 s .ft.of GFA
(B) r ; 2�'iT'.uF�" Public and Institutional Uses
Nonprofit Commercial
YcaV Art gallery,library,museum 1 per 1,000 sq.ft.of GFA
1 per 4 seats,provided only.
Auditorium auditoriumsp ace is counted s � c ��rcxuTacs Bef9Sv
ti. in determining parking
ad � � �I'o p7I2e3�1
1 peremployee
and unloading plus aging -site
Wim', ;DDr11Q Child care center,nursery loading and unloading
7• s z ;3, school spaces at a rate of 1 per 10
children accommodated
1 per 4 seats in the main
ft. 8` ll _ 1 $'CEF32S Church/religious institution auditorium or 1 per 40 sq.ft.
5! Ilt of assembly area,whichever
Provides mores aces
College auditorium - 1 per 4 seats
- -
College dormitory 1 per sleeping room
TABLE 3 College or university 1 per 500 sq.ft.of classroom
area
PARKING RATIOS
Community center 1 per 250 sq.ft.of GFA
_.
(Use/Required Spaces) Detention home 1 per 1,500 sq.ft.of GFA
Government facilities 1 per 500 square feet of floor
area
Residential Funeral homes 1 per 4 seats in main chapel
Single-family,duplex,triplex 2 per dwellinq unit plus 1 per 2 employees plus
Multi-famil or townhouse 1 1 per bedroom - 1 reserved for each vehicle
used in connection with the
- Commercial. business
Amusement 1 per 200 sq.ft.of GFA Hospital 1 per bed
aach
Convalescent home 1 per bed
Auditorium 1 per seats School—elementary and 1 per employee plus 1 space -
Auto/motorcycle service 4 per ejunior high er classroom
stations .enclosed service ba School—senior high 1 per employee plus 1 per 3
BarBank 1 per 200 .ft.of GFA students based on design
Coin-operated
or beau shop2 per chairr capacity,.or 1 per 6 seats in
oin-o erated laundry1 per 3 machines auditorium or other places of
Hospital and convalescent 1 per bed assembly,whichever is
home greater
Hotelsand motels - 1 per guest room,plus 75% Zoo 1 per 2,000 sq.ft.of land
of spaces required for area
accessory uses. All other public and
Regional antique and 1 per 500 sq.ft.of GFA institutional uses(only 1 per 4 occupants
furniture auditorium space shall be
taper Qq sq Yt GEA Qin 4 counted for churches,
RestarpSari[s €taokm ces eF ,9 vea r! auditoriums,or group
tfrrb wltrSlcw occu ane s ace) -
Retail 1 per 250 sq.ft.of GFA -
1 per 200 sq.ft.of retail FA; Manufacturing/Industrial
Retail fuel sales with spaces at pump islands are
convenience stores counted toward this 1 per 1,200 sq.ft.of GFA or
requirement Manufacturing one per employee, -
whicheveris realer
3 per each employee; Heavy industrial 1 per e a s .ft.a GFA
Retail fuel sales only spaces at pump islands are Extractive uses Adequate for all employees,
counted toward this
re uirement trucks,and a ui ment
K.feports120031PC REPORTMIO-271CUP 03-25.00(Red Rohrn).doc October 27,2003 -
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.7
RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS
STEELE CROSSING- FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST-ADDITIONAL PARKING
SEPTEMBER 2003
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers is a casual dining restaurant, specializing in gourmet
burgers and Mad Mixology beverages served by unbridled Team Members. Red Robin prides
itself on values-based culture built on living with honor and integrity, continually seeking
knowledge and havingfun. Originating in Seattle,Washington in 1969,Red Robin was ranked
one of the top 15 in a casual dining survey by Nation's Restaurant News.
As of July, 2003, Red Robin owns and operates 108 restaurants and has 104 additional
restaurants under franchise or license agreements in 23 States and 2 Canadian Provinces. As a
corporate entity alone, RRGB employs more than 9,000 Team Members. Our stores are open
from 11AM to I IPM, seven days a week.
Currently, Red Robin is in the process of developing the site in question in
Fayetteville,Arkansas, as part of the Steele Crossing Development, our first location in this,
state. Our site is located with highway visibility on the Fulbright Expressway and entrances
on the proposed Van Asche Road extension. We are currently in process with the City for a
Large Scale Development Plan and Lot Split,and have had two preliminary meetings with the
City staff to review design requirements and landscape preservation issues as are related to our
site. It is our pleasure to embellish our building to meet design guidelines of both the
Developer and the City, and have been successful in designing the site to preserve a large
grouping of trees on our site designated for preservation by the City. To accomplish this,Red
Robin has purchased a tract of land larger than normally required, and is purposefully
orienting the building in such a way to allow the patio seating to locate beneath these trees,
enhancing their vitality to our patrons.
The request before the City today is to allow Red Robin to construct a site that contains
125 parking spaces. As a company,Red Robin carefully studies our customer habits and
preferences, as well as reviews existing sites for things that work or don't work for the
customer and the business. Parking is most likely one of the primary considerations for Red
Robin when reviewing a potential new site for development. Our.restaurant is 6,350 SF of
gross area, and seats 257 patrons with a waiting area for 35 patrons. Each store employs
approximately 130 Team Members,who will number 35-40 during a maximum shift. In
almost every instance, employees require one parking space per employee. Our customers
generally seat at 2.3 customers per car. The standard table tum-around time is 45 minutes to
one hour,and average wait time is approximately 15-20 minutes. Our parking lot must
accommodate not only employees and seated customers,but allow the waiting period for those
not yet seated. Red Robin will rarely entertain a site for development without the provision of
a minimum of 125 available parking spaces (spaces can be available through cross-parking
rights in a multi-use site, or be available on the site itself). In this particular instance,Red
Robin will be a stand alone restaurant,with no cross parking available. Van Asche Drive will
RECEIVE®
October 27,2003
SEP 21089 Commission
CUP 3-25.00((R/ed Robin)
t- LlJfaNii'JG ®IY .Page 1.8
be built at 28' mi width,not a condition conducive to"on-street'parking. We midst,therefore,
park all employees and customers,both dining and waiting,in our lot. As farther evidence of
the need for the parking spaces shown on our site plan, of the existing 212 stores operating
today,only about 20 have less than 125 parks immediately available, and parking is an
operational issues at each of these sites,where our store managers have had to look for
employee parking off-site to accommodate patrons.
Although'many restaurant concepts have stopped building parking to accommodate the
peak hours of lunch, dinner and weekends to save money, Red Robin believes strongly in the
comfort and safety of our patrons. The first impression a customer has of a restaurant is the
ability to find a parking space in a parking lot that is vehicle and pedestrian fiiendily. A
frustrated customer will most likely start his/her dining experience(if they find a parking spot)
with a bad taste in her mouth-not the way we want customers to relate to our Gourmet
Burgers or our Team Members.
We respectfully request the City of Fayetteville to consider these factors, as well as our
efforts in building design and tree preservation, in reviewing our request for noted parking
spaces. Your consideration and cooperation is greatly appreciated.
RECEIVED
SEF 2 UPOUr 27,2003
PUN obin)
Page 1.9
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 48
ADM 01-19.00 Administrative Item (Off-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments) to revise
Section 172.01 Off-Street Parking Lot Design Requirements of the City of Fayetteville Unified
Development Ordinance to provide a method for reducing off-street parking requirements for
properties that share a common parking facility and to revise parking ratios for certain uses.
Hoffman: Our second proposed ordinance this evening is ADM 01-19.00 which is the
parking ordinance amendments ordinance to revise § 172.01 off-street parking lot
design requirements in the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Ordinance to
provide a method for reducing off-street parking requirements for properties that
share a common parking facility and to revise parking ratios for certain uses. Tim
or Dawn would you like to give us an introduction and then we will have
presentations?
Conklin: Sure. This ordinance started approximately about a year and a half ago it started
with a meeting with Mayor Dan Coody and talking about the ability to reduce
parking through a shared parking between mixed use developments. From there,
Laura Kelly, a Fayetteville citizen prepared an ordinance to put in front of the
Planning Division based on some work that was done by I.T.E., Institute of
Traffic Engineers, that looked at shared parking ratios. Staff asked that they get
with the Downtown Dickson Street Enhancement Project to discuss this shared
parking within mixed use developments ordinance, D.D.E.P. did review it and
they did send a letter in support of this ordinance. At this time I am going to let
- Shelli Rushing go over the ordinance that is proposed before you tonight. When
we initially brought it forward there was a request to also look at our parking
ratios. We have quite a few conditional use requests for restaurant parking and
bank parking. Staff has gone forward and we have provided those parking ratio
amendments also as part of this request.
Rushing: The main things I want to point out to you in regards to the Shared Parking
Ordinance are two items on page 2.16 starting at the top of the page. This is the
newest portion of the ordinance with the exception of the parking ratios and it
does address shared parking between developments and setting up those
agreements and identifying the number of shared spaces that we basically
currently have. The newest portion is the number four reduced parking within
mixed use developments and what this does is use table 4 on page 2.17 using the
occupancy rates and using the calculation to determine the number of spaces
needed for both or one or more developments that are involved within sharing a
parking space to determine the maximum amount of spaces needed. Those are for
land uses that typically have different peak demand times such as a bank and a
church is a good example of land uses that would be able to share parking. That
is the shared parking agreement. We also have in your packet, we put together a
worksheet so that we could clarify how that calculation is determined because it
originally started out kind of confusing. I think based on comments from the last
time we were before you, we have included those and tried to clean up the
description of the calculation. Then in regard to the parking ratios, what we did is
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.10
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 49
we took a look at our existing ratios. We looked at some of the requests that we
have had for conditional use permits to increase the amount of parking and looked
at some other ordinances not only just in Arkansas, but also outside of Arkansas
and looked at some standards and tried to find those land uses where we felt that
we needed some clarification or we actually needed an actual parking ratio, which
we didn't have on a few of them. We are proposing a new category for funeral
homes, which would be one per four seats in the main chapel, one per two
employees, and one reserved space for each vehicle that is used in connection
with that business. Another new category is fuel sales with convenience stores
and fuel sales only. I think everything kind of fell into gas service stations. We
separated those into three separate categories. Another change that we are
recommending is that right now we have restaurants excluding drive-thrus, and
those that offer entertainment and then we also have restaurants that offer
entertainment. What we kind of do is try to clarify that a little bit and come up
with a new category, which is strictly restaurants which is one per one hundred'
square feet of gross floor areas plus four stacking spaces for any drive-thm
window. Those are the new categories. The other categories, you have had a
chance to take a look at this. We are proposing some slightly revised ratios based
on some of the research that we have done.
Hoffman: Thank you.
Bunch: On the new category on fuel sales only, does that need to be described as maybe
retail or wholesale or what does that encompass?
Rushing: Strictly fuel sales.
Bunch: Would it be like a bulk plant for wholesale sales or would it be like a retail outlet?
Rushing: I think we would apply it to both situations.
Conklin: It does state with convenience store.
Bunch: No, that is the next category. Fuel sales only is this one. The question becomes is
that to include a bulk plant where they have the trucks and everything that are
hauling to the retail stations?
Hoffinan: There is only one that I know of in Fayetteville, off of Sixth and Razorback, there
is purely a fuel sales facility that doesn't have a convenience store attached to it
and I think that they sale wholesale and retail both. I am sorry I don't know the
name of the business but that is the only one I know of.
Conklin: Mitchell Oil Company.
Hoffinan: Do you know of any others in town?
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.11
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 50
Conklin: That is the only one I can think of
Bunch: At one time in this town we had quite a few outlets that were help yourself
stations where there was basically a little window and a trailer or something like
that and some fuel pumps. You know, these things go in cycles. My question is
if from past experience of what we have seen in this town, if we should
encompass those types of installations and also to differentiate from a bulk oil
wholesale operation and a retail outlet.
Conklin: I am trying to understand your question. Would that be from a refinery?
Bunch: An oil distributor. Someone who has the trucks and the equipment and the large
tanks and they haul the oil and gasoline products to retail outlets.
Conklin: Would it be like an industrial park use? You are going to have tanks and trucks?
Bunch: Like a Mitchell Oil Company. Just an outfit that sells to other service stations,
convenience stores, it is more of an industrial application.
Hoffman: Can I ask you a question Commissioner Bunch? When we talk about three spaces
per each employee and spaces of the pump islands are calculated towards this
requirement. Do you have a problem with the actual parking ratio for this use or
do you have further questions about the use? I think the use is we can get some
more in Fayetteville or not but how does this pertain to the parking?
Bunch: Where it just says fuel sales only, a bulk plant operation has maybe several
employees that are driving trucks that they pick up products on site and deliver to
other sites. What we may be doing by not being more descriptive in our
definition; we may be requiring considerable amount of parking at a bulk plant
operation when it is not necessary.
Hoffman: I would suggest then that the staff take a look at other types of facilities like that
and see if they need to have reserved spaces for the trucks and then how many
people actually work at those facilities. We are having reserved spaces for the
funeral home specialty vehicles, I guess we could reserve spaces for the trucks
too.
Bunch: I am just trying to get a differentiation between a wholesale distributor type
operation and a retail outlet because it seems like it would be an adverse burden.
My question is what is the intent of what it says here?
Hoffman: Would it clear it up if we just put wholesale fuel sales only?
Williams: I think that actually means retail
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.12
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 51
Bunch: I think it should be retail. That is what my question is. Apparently it is quite
confusing because the intent is probably retail.
Rushing: Yes.
Hoffman: Then do a separate category for wholesale and that should clear it up.
Bunch: That would clear it up.
Church: Just a quick question for Shelli. On the table on 2.17 it lists out commercial,
would retail fall in that? I know there is an asterisk there but I don't know what
that means exactly. Would retail fall under commercial because that is kind of its
own category instead of falling into commercial. I am just wondering if maybe
we should list retail separately because the hours might be different than the
normal commercial category.
Rushing: At this point we would interpret that retail would fall into that commercial
category. This was some of the research that was put together by Laura Kelly and
she came up with these land use categories. I don't know if in her research she
found a specific category for retail or not.
Church: That might just be something to take a look at.
Hoffman: Does anybody have any other questions for Shelli before we take public
comment?
Estes: Shelli, in the material that you provided us regarding the restaurant parking, we
are told that based on the historic data that the average is 14.9 spaces per 1,000
sq.ft. and that that excludes Chili's and then in table three we have got one per
200 sq.ft. of floor area, which his of course five spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Again, my
concern is is there something that we can do to get that current ratio for
restaurants up to a more realistic level that is consistent with the historical data? I
guess another way of saying it is why did you set it at one per 200 sq.ft. of floor
area knowing that the historic data is that we do about three times that?
Rushing: That was something that we really tried to take a look at. Keep in mind that these
are requests for conditional use permits for more parking. We did not want to set
the minimum requirements so high that we had restaurants not being able to meet
that requirement. These are particular situations where they requested an amount
of parking spaces significantly higher than what we currently not only require but
allow. We did not want to set our minimum requirements so high that those other
restaurants would not be able to meet it. We didn't want to go to extremes with it
but still wanted to be able to try to catch some of those conditional uses that we
have coming in. This does catch a few of them, it does not catch all of them.
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.13
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 52
Warrick: I would just add on that in the area on table three that you are looking at, the one
per 200 sq.ft. of floor area for restaurants. If you will look the proposed ratio on
that is to delete that category and two down below that is a proposed new
category that changes the ratio to one per one hundred sq.ft. of gross floor area
plus stacking room. The one per 200 is what we currently have.
Estes: So we are going to continue to hear variance requests on a case by case because
one per 100 is way below what the historic average is. In other words, what I am
saying is simply stated can we sieze the moment and use this as an opportunity
and set these ratios closer to the historic data so that we don't force applicants to
come to us time and time again with these variance requests for restaurant
parking?
Conklin: We looked at table one and for McAllister's and Guido's that ratio works for
them. If you wanted to set it for the other type of restaurants it would be the
fifteen per 1,000 sq.ft.
Rushing: Fifteen per 1,000 sq.ft. is the next level that we were looking at. When we took at
that you will see when you look on table two, J.D. China and Guido's, the number
of spaces J.D. China provided was 57. If we go to 15 per 1,000 sq.ft. they would
have had to have provided 93 spaces. Those seemed a little extreme to us and we
didn't want to have such significant requirements for some of the smaller
restaurants. The same with Guido's. They ended up providing 40 spaces and with
the 15 per 1,000 sq.ft. they would have had to have provided 64.
Hoffman: Could we look at instead of holding fast at one per 100 sq.ft., could we put in a
percentage and say as long as they fall within some percentage within 50% to
100% of this number, if they didn't want to put that many in they wouldn't have
to? It is all based on performance data on these chains that have got a pretty good
idea of what they need.
Rushing: I believe we could put together something along those lines.
Williams: That is why I recommended that you give the Planning Division more power.
Right now we say the minimum and maximum number is this. In other words,
this is the number and then you say well you've got 20% that the Planner has. I
recommend that you go at least 30% with the Planner to give them more wiggle
room. The same number right now by ordinance is the minimum and maximum
number and really I think that we can rely upon our city Planning Division to use
their discretion appropriately. I think 20% up and down from that is not enough
variation between different kinds of restaurants and I would rather have you all
recommend to the City Council that we give the Planning Division more
discretion, more leeway between those two numbers. That is why I recommended
30% as opposed to 20%. Maybe that is not even enough but that would at least
take care of some of these problems with different sorts of restaurants.
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.14
Planning Commission
July 8,2002
Page 53
Shackelford: Could we not set a minimum and maximum and have a range?
Hoffman: That is what I was talking about.
Shackelford: You are talking about just a variance from that. Would it be a request for less
parking spaces too?
Hoffman: Yes. It happens sometimes. I think you have people that have'a high percentage
of drive tbru and things like that that this would take them into account. Does
anybody have anymore questions before we take public comment?
Estes: With regard to the schools, considering the gymnasium and the auditorium, is
there any way to calculate that on a square footage basis and fall into something
like we do for community centers?
Rushing: I believe we could do something like that.
Estes: How would you suggest that that be done? I have got the idea but I don't have the
technical expertise to implement that idea. How would we do that?
Rushing: We would have to find a way to coordinate it with what they would be providing
for student use. That would be used for auditorium use as well. What I have seen
in some of the other ordinances is that they will do one per 10 students based on
current enrollment or the one per four seats in the auditorium and whichever one
is higher is what they would require. So, you could do something along those
lines.
Hoffman: Ok, anybody else? Thanks Shelli. We will get back to you because I'm sure we
have got more questions. We appreciate it. I will now open the floor for public
comment.
Kelly: Hi, I am Laura Kelly, a citizen of Fayetteville. I just want to state that number
one remember when we are talking minimum requirements flexibility is such a
great idea. I am glad you brought that up because when we are talking about land
for cars it doesn't help the developer or the city when we take space away and
pave it over so flexibility is a good thing and that is why the shared parking
element was expanded and introduced to allow in certain circumstances in which
you do have some mixed uses with complementary demands on parking, it is
really to the advantage of everyone to increase the profitability of that site by
allowing some more buildable area. Also, in the categories of minimaluse you
have feed lot wholesales and emergency medical technicians. You are going to
have too many categories if you try to cover everyone and I think it is just really
good to streamline and allow flexibility and usability and that is all my comments.
Thank you.
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.15
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 54
MOTION:
Hoffman: We want to thank you too for the time that you have put into this. I know you
spent a lot of your personal time on helping the city with your ideas and so forth
so thanks Laura very much. Would anybody else like to talk to us about this? I
will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to staff and to the
Commission for additional suggestions or motions or whatever. I have just a
couple of housekeeping items. I would like to add a category for nightclubs and
taverns that is currently not listed. I don't know what to suggest for those ratios
but I think that they have one space per four seats is kind of a national standard. I
hesitate to bring up outdoor seating areas but I think it something that we
should address at some point and those are not covered. I am not sure whether we
want to go ahead and exempt places that are putting in fewer than 10 or 15 seats
because I think that most of our small bars have limited outdoor seating that is
seasonal in nature so I will just throw that idea out and you can think about it and
work with it. I would also like to add a standard for queing spaces for any drive-
thru facility, banks, restaurants, so whatever. Are there any other comments? I
would like to go ahead and move that the Planning Commission approve this for
forwarding to the City Council to the Ordinance Review Committee for their
consideration in taking into account all of the comments that have been mentioned
this evening with regard to retail commercial, the restaurant upper and lower
limits, and I am sure that I am forgetting something. I apologize, it has been a
long meeting but that is my motion.
Bunch: Is that to include the queing?
Hoffman: Yes, everybody's comments and the wholesale verses retail fuel sales.
Bunch: Nightclubs and tavems.
Hoffman: Nightclubs,taverns, outdoor seating.
Bunch: At what point in time do those standards get developed and get inserted?
Hoffman: I think that between the time,this is something I personally trust staff with. They
have done an excellent job of researching what is done nationally and what seems
to be a national standard and these really don't vary that much. If you guys can
find similar cities of similar size and use those ordinances as a guide then I have
no problem with them inserting that. We are all free to go to the public meetings
that will occur and if this goes to the Ordinance Review Committee.
Bunch: I will second.
Hoffman: I have a motion and a second. Is there any additional comment? Renee, would
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.16
Planning Commission
July 8, 2002
Page 55
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-19.00 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you everyone for your hard
work and efforts. We do appreciate it. That concludes our agenda for this
evening. Tim, do we have any announcements?
Conklin: I would just like to remind the Commission that we are scheduling a Planning
Commission retreat. I believe that that is July 29"'. If you put that on your
calendar we will get more information to you. That is all I have.
Hoffman: Ok, thanks Tim. We will adjourn this meeting. Thank you everybody and have a
great night.
Meeting adjourned: 8:08 p.m.
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.17
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(501)575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO; Planning Commission
FROM: Shelli Rushing,Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: July 8,2002
ADM 01-19.00 Administrative Item (Parking Ordinance Amendments)to revise Section
172.01 Off-Street Parking Lot Design Requirements of the City of Fayetteville Unified
Development Ordinance to provide a method for reducing off-street parking requirements for
properties that share a common parking facility and to revise parking ratios for certain uses.
BACKGROUND
On June 20,2001, Laura Kelly submitted a proposed shared parking ordinance to the Planning
Division. She then established,a subcommittee with members of the Downtown Dickson
Enhancement Project, Inc. to discuss the proposed ordinance. On November 13, 2001,the
Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project, Inca submitted a letter to the Planning Division
expressing support for the revised proposal. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Kelly and the Planning
Division staff discussed and revised the proposed ordinance.
The proposed shared parking ordinance was presented to Planning Commission at the March 25,
2002 Planning Commission meeting. The item was tabled for further study. Staff, the applicant
Laura Kelly,and members of the Planning Commission revised the proposed ordinance and are
now presenting it to Planning Commission.Staff mailed a copy of the proposed ordinance to the
Planning Commission on May 30;2002 to allow adequate time for review.
On June 3,2002,
Kit Williams distributed a memo suggesting that the shared parking ordinance not go forward
until the parking ratios are revised. Staff has researched parking ratios and is recommending
changes based on this research. The ordinance mailed to the Planning Commission on May 30
has been revised to propose new parking ratios. The portion regarding shared parking has not
changed.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the revised off-street parking ordinance to the City Council
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
C.IDOCU/MENYSAND SETTINGSVPATEILOCAL SETTINGSITEMPISTAFFREPORT 6-20.DOC - Page 1.18
FINDINGS
Shared Parkins
Different land uses incorporated within one development may have different peak demands for
parking. The proposed shared parking ordinance will allow developers to voluntarily reduce the
supply of parking in these circumstances. Developers who choose to utilize this option may
reduce the amount of impervious surface, reduce the cost of parking lot construction,and
increase the amount of developable area.
The proposed ordinance enhances the City's current Off-Street Parking Lot Design Standards by
adding a mechanism to reduce required parking when it can be proven that the overall demand
for parking will be actually reduced by the varying peak demand. The proposed ordinance is
based on the principles provided in various guidelines and books regarding parking
requirements.
There are two main elements of the shared parking ordinance.
• The first element is shared parking between developments. In these cases, uses that have
non-conflicting demands, such as a church and a bank,may share parking facilities if
they complete a shared parking agreement. This element is part of the current parking lot.
ordinance.
• The second element is reduced parking within mixed use developments. In these
instances, an applicant can use Table 4 of the ordinance to calculate a reduction in
parking. The steps for calculating the reduction are provided.
Staff has created a worksheet that provides a step by step method for calculating the reduction. A
copy of the worksheet is attached.
Sources:
• Shared Parking Planning Guidelines,by Institute of Traffic Engineers(ITE)Technical Committee.
Published by ITE,Washington,D.C., 1995.
• Shared Parking,by Barton-Aschman Associates.Published by the Urban Land Institute(www,uli:org),
1982.
• Flexible Parking Requirements,Thomas P. Smith.Published by the American Planning Association,report
#377,(www.planning.org), 1983.
• Parking Policy Evaluation,Evaluating Parking Options, Costs,Pricing and Revenue,by Tood Litman.
Published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute(www.vtpi.org).
• Parking Solutions,A Comprehensive Menu of Solutions to Parking Problems,by Todd Litman.Published
by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute(www.vtpi.org).
• The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements,by Donald C. Shoup.Published by the Victoria
Transport Policy Institute(www.vtpi.ore), 1999.
• Transportation Demand Management Status Report: Parking Pricing,prepared by K.T.Analytics,Inc.,
Frederick,Maryland, for U.S.Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration. October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
C.IDOCUMEN7N AND SETTINGSUPATEILOCAL SETTINGSITEMPI STAFFREPORT6-20-DOC Page.1.19
Parking Ratios
Staff research included(1)a review of conditional use permits requesting an increase in the
number of parking spaces than what is permitted by ordinance; (2)reference to three books with
parking ratio data and parking demand data(Off-Street Parking Requirements,David Bergman,
1991; Parkins; Robert A. Weant&Herbert S. Levinson, 1990; and The Dimensions of Parkins,
Urban Land Institute &the National Parking Association, 1993), and(3)a comparison of
Fayetteville's current ratios with those of other Arkansas cities and other college towns of similar
size.Research suggests that parking ratios for certain uses are inadequate to meet the needs of
those uses. Only one city,Fort Collins had a provision regarding maximum parking spaces,
which was 20 percent of the required allowed as long as landscaping is also increased by 20%.
Parking ratios for the following uses should be revised based on these findings.
Bank: No requirements provided at this time. Other cities studied calculated spaces
using square feet and employees.
Child Care:: Other cities studied calculate child care based on employees and students, not
square feet.
Churches: Applicants have requested conditional uses for additional parking spaces for
churches. For example, St. Joseph Church was approved for an additional 113
spaces.However, 1 parking space per 4 seats appears to be common in other
parking space requirements.
Community Centers: Other cities studied calculate spaces by square feet,not seats.
Dance Halls: Applicants have requested conditional uses for additional parking spaces for
dance halls. I parking space per 100 square feet appears to be common in other
parking space requirements.
Funeral Homes: No regulations provided at this time. Most cities studied base calculations
on seats, employees and company vehicles.
Gas Service Stations: Most cities studied calculate spaces required by square feet of
building or number of employees, not per service bay. Other cities
also have different parking ratios for automobile service stations
and fuel sales.
Hotels/Motels: 1 parking space per guest room is common. Other cities have requirements
for uses accessory to the hotel, such as meeting rooms, restaurants and
lounges.
Restaurants: Applicants have made many requests for conditional uses for additional parking
spaces for restaurants. Recent conditional use requests for additional parking
spaces include Guidos in 2002 (90 spaces permitted, 104 spaces approved),
Golden Corral in 2001 (62 permitted, 152 spaces approved), JD China in 2000 (37
spaces permitted, 57 spaces approved), Olive Garden in 2002 (49 spaces
permitted, 151 spaces approved), and McAlister's in 2002 (22 spaces permitted,
55 spaces approved). Table 1 shows restaurant parking ratios of Fayette)OkWber 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
C:IDOCUMENYS AND SEMNGSVPATEILOCAL.SEMNGSITEMPWAFF REPORT 6-20.DOC Page 1.20.
restaurants, comparing what is allowed by ordinance and what is calculated using
the formula of 1 space per number of seats.
TABLE 1 1 Parking
Parking Spaces for Space
Fayetteville Restaurants Per No.of
Seats
No. 1 per 4 Minus
Of Square Employee Min. Max No. Plus max
Seats Feet Max Shift Required Allowed Provided 20% employees
Chili's 250 5196 20 26.00 31.20 180 75 1.56
Golden
Corral 390 10330 40 52.00 62.40 152 117 3.48
Rio Bravo 210 8499 59 43.00 51.60 156 63 2.16
Ryan's 392 10065 40 51.00 61.20 214 117.6 2.25
Olive
Garden 242 8077 30 41.00 49.20 151 72.6 2.00
Red Lobster 199 8167 50 41.00 49.20 138 59.7 2.26
Dixie Cafe 220 9000 60 45.00 54.00 94 66 6.47 .
JD China 200 6200 n/a 31.00 37.20 57 60 n/a
Guido's 104 4275 6 21.37 25.6 40 31.2 n/a
McAlister's 175 3600 15 18.00 22.00 55 74 n/a
The Dimension offarkingindicates that the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the Urban Land
Institute recommend using the following formula for most uses: number of spaces per 1,000
square feet. It is important to determine how the square footage is calculated. Common standards
are: Gross Floor Area(GFA),Net Floor Area(NFA), Leaseable Floor Area(LFA), and Rentable
Floor Area(RFA). A description of what is included in each of these standards is attached to this
report. The recommendations proposed herein use gross floor area (GFA), which is the total floor
area, including the exterior building walls, of all floors of a building or structure.
Table 2 compares parking ratio options for restaurants, using formulas of 10 spaces, 15 spaces
and 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the restaurants in Table 1. An average can be established
by using the spaces per 1,000 square feet currently provided,minus Chili's because the ratio is
significantly higher than all others. The average of this calculation is 14.9 spaces per 1,000
square feet.
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
C:IDOCUMEN7SAND SETTINGSVPATEILOCAL SETTINGSITEMPISTAFF REPORT 6-10.DOC Page.1.21
Table 2
Ratio Com arisoas for Existing Restaurants
Spaces/
Square Spaces 1,000 sq. 10/11000 SQ.ft. 15/1,000 sq.ft. 20/1,000 sq. ft
Feet Provided ft. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
Chili's 5,196 180 34.7 52 63 78 94 103 124
Golden Corral 10,330 152 14.7 103 124 155 186 207 248
Rio Bravo, 8,499 156 18.3 85 102 127 152 170 204
Ryan's 10,065 214 21.3 101 122 151 181 201 241
Olive Garden 8,077 1 151 1 18.7 81 97 121 146 162 194
Red Lobster 8,167 138 16.9 82 99 123 147 164 197
Dixie CaR 9,000 94 10.4 90 108 135 162 180 216
JD China 6200 57 9.2 62 74 93 112 124 149
Guido's 4275 _F__4o___1 9.4 43 52 64 77 86 103
Staff is recommended the following changes to parking ratios for these land uses:
Table 3
Proposed ParkingRatios
Land Use Current Ratio Proposed Ratio
Bank n/a 3.5 per 1,000 sq.ft. GFA
(Fort Collins,CO)
Child Care1 per 1,500 sq.ft.+an area for 1 per employee plus on-site loading and unloading
overflow parking spaces at a rate of 1 per 10 children accommodated
(N.Little Rock)
Churches/Religious 1 per 4 seats in the main 1 per 4 seats in the main auditorium or 25 per 1000
Institutions auditorium+an area for overflow sq. ft, of assembly area,whichever provides more
parking,or 1 per 40 sq.ft., spaces
whichever is less (Adapted from Siloam Springs)
Community Centers 1 per 3 seats 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. of GFA
Lake Forest,IL)
1 per 160 sq.ft.of floor area 20 per 1;000 sq.ft. of GFA,excluding kitchen
Dance Halls (Adapted from Long Beach,CA&Grand Forks,
ND
NEW CATEGORY: n/a 1 per 4 seats in main chapel+ 1 per 2 employees+ 1
Funeral Homes reserved for each vehicle used in connection with
the business
(Adapted from Eureka Springs&Leesburg,VA)
Gas Service Stations 4 per each enclosed service bay Keep ratio,rename to Auto/Motorcycle Service
Stations
NEW CATEGORY: n/a 5 per 1,000 sq.ft. of retail FA;spaces at pump
Fuel Sales with islands are counted toward this requirement
Convenience Stores (Adapted from Columbia, MO&Ames;IA)
NEW CATEGORY: n/a 3 per each employee
Fuel Sales Only (Ames,IA)
Ortaher 77, 03
Planning Commission
CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
C.IDOCUMENISAND SETTINGSUPATEILOCAL SETTINGSITEMPISTAFFREPORT 6-20.DOC Page 1.22
Hotels/Motels I per room+ 1 additional space 1 per guest room plus 75%of spaces required for
per employee accessory uses
(Adapted from Columbia,MO
Restaurants, 1 per 200 sq.ft. of floor area 10 per 1,000 sq.ft.GFA
excluding drive
throughs and those
offering
entertainment
NEW CATEGORY: n/a 15 per 1,000 sq.ft.GFA plus 4 stacking spaces per
Restaurants with drive-through window
drive-throw hs
Schools-Elementary '1 per 1200 sq.ft.of classroom 1 per employee plus %z space per classroom(Pine
and Junior High area Bluff)
Schools—Senior High I per 500 sq.ft.of classroom area 1 per employee plus 1 per 10 students
(Pine Bluff)
October 27,2003
Planning Commission
C:IDOCUMENTSAND SETTINGSUPA TEILOCAL SETTINGSMEMPISTAFFREPORT 6-20.DOC CUP 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 1.23
FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of October 27, 2003
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264.
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: October 22, 2003
LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development(Red Robin,pp 174) was submitted by Brent K.
O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located
east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave., Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is
zoned C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The request is for the
construction of a 6,256 sq. ft.restaurant with 125 parking spaces proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate
Findings:
Proposal: The applicant's request is to construct a 6,256 SF Red Robin Gourmet Burger casual
dining restaurant, located in Lot 17 of the Steele Crossing subdivision. To create the subject lot,
a lot split has been processed, the third and final waiver of subdivision requirements allowed by
ordinance for Lot 17.A preliminary plat for Lot 17 was approved September 08, 2003 by
Planning Commission,allowing for the construction of the Van Asche Drive extension, a
detention pond to serve Lot 17, and associated street lights, water and sewer lines, and
sidewalks. The subject property, Lot 17D,has frontage onto I-540 and the future Van Asche
Drive, and is located within the Design Overlay District. The proposed structure has been sited to
preserve an existing stand of trees to the southeast of the property. Parking in excess of the
amount allowed by ordinance is requested by conditional use,which must be heard by Planning
Commission along with the Large Scale Development.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Vacant C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
South Fulbright Expressway C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
East Vacant C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
West Vacant Lot, Olive Garden C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
Right-of-way being dedicated: 35 feet from centerline right-of-way along Van Asche Drive, a
Collector Street being constructed
Street Improvements: Van Asche Drive is being extended to the east with an approved
Preliminary Plat for Lot 17. Street improvements are required to be completed prior to issuance
of certificates of occupancy. Should the construction of Van Asche Drive not occur as approved
with the Preliminary Plat, the applicant shall be responsible for constructing the street extension.
K.IReportsl20031PCREPOR7S110-27L'SD 03-15.00(Red Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
LSD 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 2.1
A temporary access easement is to be filed with the lot split plat to ensure adequate
ingress/egress to the subject lot.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Van Asche Drive; Collector; Fulbright Expressway,
Freeway
Design Overlay District:
• Greenspace: The applicant has complied with the 25'greenspace requirement
along the rights-of-way.
• Signage: Monument Sign: The applicant is indicating one (1)monument
sign along Van Asche Drive. Rendered elevations of the,proposed
signage,not to exceed 75 SF, 6 feet in height, should be submitted
with revisions for Planning Commission review.
Wall Sign: The applicant is allowed two (2)wall signs for the
property's two frontages, to be 20% of the wall area or 200 SF,
whichever is less. The applicant is requesting a variance to
incorporate three wall signs, which requires Planning Commission
approval. By Code, all sign illumination is to utilize indirect
lighting. The applicant is proposing to utilize internally-lit signage.
• Curb Cuts: The proposal is utilizing the curb cuts approved with the
Preliminary Plat for Lot 17, which was a waiver of the 200 feet
required in the Design Overlay District, approved by Planning
Commission.
Lighting: The applicant has indicated compliance with the requirement for
35-foot maximum height, utilizing sodium lighting fixtures,
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: A materials sample board has been submitted, indicating
the structure is to be primarily constructed of brick and
stucco.
• Site Coverage: Approximately 40% of the site has been left in open space,
including the tree preservation area.
• Fencing: N/A
• Outdoor Storage: N/A
K:IReports120031PCREPOR7SV 0-2717SD 03-25.00(Wed Robin).doc October 27,2003
Planning Commission
LSD 03-25.00(Red Robin)
Page 2.2