HomeMy WebLinkAbout134-05 RESOLUTION• •
RESOLUTION NO. 134-05
A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING
ALLOWED SIGNAGE FOR LSD 05-1468
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
grants the appeal of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval regarding allowed
signage for LSD 05-1468.
PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of July, 2005.
`•:�G• _ •.• • RSG,.
to. 'p:
; FAY ETIEVILLE
'
ATTEST:
By: hAE ) l� M, L
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
• e Q
0 FRIDAYS
In Here, It's Always Friday."
June 2, 2005
City Clerk's Office
Attention: City Clerk
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Sir:
On Monday, May 23, we had the opportunity to present our development plan to
the Fayetteville Planning Commission for the construction of a T.G.I. Friday's
restaurant at The Steele Crossing development in your city. I am pleased to say
that, for the most part, our proposal met with approval, and we would like to
move ahead with the construction of our restaurant. We did, however, have
several issues that I would like to have your assistance in resolving. Our sign
package was altered to exclude a rear sign and our trademark logo "In here, it's
always Friday's" over the front entry. We believe that both signs fall within the
guidelines of other restaurants in the arca. We will be presenting our arguments
to the City Council on June 21st. I have enclosed a picture of the door sign which
we believe is tastefully done and will not be offensive to our guests or other
visitors to the area Would you please distribute the other pictures that 1 have
enclosed to the Council Members for their review. As for the rear sign, we will
be presenting examples of other restaurants that have been allowed sigmage
similar to what we are requesting. As mentioned, we are anxious to get underway
and would like any assistance you may be able to give us with resolving these
issues.
Please feel free to call me should you have any questions.
hen W. Bell
resident
Enclosure
Trlcorp Mangemest Compa.y
Licensed Franchisee
733 Crow. lad. 0., Sulte V
Chesterfield, MO 63005
(636) 537.9777
Fax (636) 537.9778
RECEIVED
JUN 0 3 2095
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
17406.4 t ''1/5/05n, 4P1 1°5
•
FAQ=
THE CITY Of FAYfTTEVIIL ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
•
FROM
T G I FRIDAYS
TRICORP IC MT CO
733 CP:O;,IS IND CT STE V
MO 63005
CE'ESTEItFLE_D
PKym.nt
87L24092 &„te,
636-537-9777
ongin
VINweytHn 'i 025603Li40
Recawt 3IdPany •
1 800 CaII•DHL
❑ PaACv in
Billing Reference t++
.Meat 0n Immo/
T°C{y ClerKts d-Ccice.
113 W «iotN A;to Sre-cT
P.A/c--teJ,11e AR i ai o I
C_Ierfr
1111 1111 111111 11
• e Pkg•
wagnt (LBS)
Spiel In.tnidlcn.
SAT
7LAB
P.,U mj G.. DP CM N nORN
❑ �eIw�pv
•❑ U
9
• Da
0>30
Ne t
Do
2«00
gtao
Da
3+00
HAA
30025603440
2nd
Day
30025 603440 1
30025 603440
c-.1\fuw., Co\\
1 Urgent
10:30am
MUM
Urgent
We deliver on time or no fee is charged
0.30 tuo Delivery Not Availa • le (%)FJD Locations 1292Ioa04)Sj
• r
City Council Meeting of June 21, 2005
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: June 13, 2005
Subject: Planning Commission Appeal for TGI Friday's Restaurant (LSD 05-1468)
RECOMMENDATION
"I he Planning Commission voted on May 23 to approve a Conditional Use and Large
Scale Development for TGI Friday's restaurant, located at the southwest comer of Mall
Avenue and Van Asche Drive. Staff recommended approval of the project, with a total of
fifteen conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Property description: The 2.10 -acre lot is proposed to contain a 6,586 SF TGI Friday's
restaurant with 116 parking spaces, which required a conditional use, as it is above the
number allowed by ordinance. The site is located north of Logan's Roadhouse
Restaurant, south of Fuddrucker's Restaurant, within the I-54(1 Design Overlay District.
Request: The applicant is appealing the conditions of approval set by the Planning
Commission for the project regarding the allowed signage. At the time of Large Scale
Development, the applicant was requesting a total of four (4) sign variances from the 1-
540 Design Overlay District requirements. The Planning Commission granted 2/4 of the
variances, finding in favor of the requested monument sign with an attached slogan and
finding in favor of the requested "Fasy Come, Easy Go" directional signage for the
curbside pickup arca. The Planning Commission did not find in favor of an additional
TGI Friday's wall sign, and found in favor of staffs recommendation to incorporate the
requested "In here it's always Friday" slogan into the larger TGI Friday's wall sign in
order to consider these as the same sign and to be consistent with other restatirants in the
area.
Signage criteria in a commercial zoning district within the Design Overlay District
(D.O.D.) differs from that within a commercial zoning district outside the Design
Overlay District. Presently, the Planning Commission is the authority for variances on
signage in the D.O.D. An applicant may appeal the Planning Commission's decisions to
the City Council, which is the case here. Outside of the D.O.D., an applicant must
comply with Ch. 174 Signs. The Zoning & Development Administrator has limited
ability to grant appeals from Ch. 174; beyond that, an applicant must pursue action in
Circuit Court. Variances from numbers of signs allowed is not within the authority of the
Zoning & Development Administrator to grant, by city ordinance.
•
City Counclillit eeting of June 21, 2005
Agenda Item Number
Staff finds that the current Design Overlay District ordinance requires Planning
Commission approval for any wall sign that is beyond the name of the business, such as
the corporate slogan "In here it's always Friday." Staff has supported many instances in
this area for restaurants wanting to utilize these corporate slogans, as evidenced in the
attached photographs. However, in order to recommend these slogans and permit them
accordingly, the slogan is either directly or indirectly incorporated into the larger sign
indicating the name of the business itself. If on another plane, the sign constitutes a
separate wall sign, by ordinance; the number of wall signs allowed within the Design
Overlay District is limited to one per street frontage. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommends in favor of TGI Friday's retaining it's slogan, however it must be
incorporated into the design of the overall sign face, and meet the size requirements set
forth in the Unified Development Code.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on May 23, 2005. The Large
Scale Development was approved with a vote of 9-0-0. The applicant has submitted an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Clerk within the 10 -day appeal
period.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
• •
161.24 Design Overlay District (1-540 Ilighway Corridor)
(A)Purpose. The purpose of establishing a Design Overlay District for the 1-540
Highway Corridor is as follows:
(I) To protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the 1-540 Highway
Corridor by providing for nonresidential developments which will maximize
preservation and enhancement of the natural, rural, and open character of the
terrain and foliage.
(2) To address the issues of traffic and safety.
(3) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil
erosion, vegetation preservation, drainage and heat islands.
(4) To preserve and enhance the economic value and viability of property within and
near the Overlay District for the 1-540 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 Tots with
double frontage, two ground -mounted (monument) signs shall he 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.
•
Do This
Propety Unel
Minimum
9n
Minimum Sign
-.Distance from
Property Line
I
1
6'
•
J
1
Do not do This
(b) Wall signs. One wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall
not exceed 20% of that wall area or 200 square feet, whichever is less. A
second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more
than one front facing a street or highway right-of-way.
(c) Illumination. Only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all signs.
(d) Multiple tenants. The owner of the building shall be responsible for the
provisions of one monument sign with sign area for multiple tenants.
(e) Sign content. Content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to the
name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structure,
wall sign or monument.
) •
Y
a e eville ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTE.VILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
PC Meeting of May 23, 2005
TO: F•ayettcvillc Planning CommiSSion
FROM: Andrew Garner, Sr. Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
TTIRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May -1005 -May 24, 2005
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development (t"GI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by
MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at Lou 16B, CMN 11, 463
E. VAN ASCIIE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THORO(JGHFARE COMMERCIAL and
contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the development of a restaurant
with approximately 6,586 square feet (SE) and 116 parking spaces proposed.
Property Owner: NANCIIAR INC. Property Owner: MARJORIE I3ROOKS
Submittal on behalf of: STEVE BELL Planner: JEREMY PATE
Findings:
Background: The 4.53 -acre Lot 16 parent tract was split into Lots 16a and 16b consisting of
2.43 and 2.10 acres, respectively, in February 2004. The subject Lot 16h is undeveloped and Lot
I6a to the south contains Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant. Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant targe
Scale Development was approved in March 2004. As part of the approval process for Logan's
Roadhouse, a Conditional Use Permit was issued to allow additional parking spaces over the
number allowed by city ordinance.
Property: The subject property is located within the city's Design Overlay District at the
southeast corner of Mall Avenue and Van Ashe Drive, adjacent to Logan's Roadhouse restaurant
and directly across from the Olive Garden restaurant. The property has street frontage and
ingress/egress on both of these Collector streets. A north -south trending drainage on the western
edge of the site contains a floodplain and wetlands. A single stand of willow trees associated
with this unnamed tributary to Mud Creek supports 1,800 SF of tree canopy; however, none of
the trees on the property are significant or champion specimens. Currently there is no
development on the site.
.Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction Land Use
North Fuddruckers site (Lot 13a)
South Logan's Roadhouse (Lot I6a),
Shiloh Drive, Hwy 7113
East Olive Garden (Lot 17)
West I..ot I 5, Commercial Development
Zoning
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
K:IReports110051PC Repc :x105-23-051LSD 05-1448 (TG/ Fridays) FINALdoc
C-2, Thonau ,hfaare Commercial
C-2, Thornug,hlare Commercial
• •
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a TGI Friday's restaurant in the Steele Crossing
Subdivision. The subject property, Lot 16b, has frontage onto both Van Ashe Drive and Mall
Avenue, and is located within the Design Overlay District. Along with Large Scale Development
approval, the applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit for 116 parking spaces; a maximum of 90
are allowed by right.
Request: The request is for Large Scale Development approval of the submitted site plans for
TGI Friday's. Associated with this request, but not officially heard until Planning Commission,
is a Conditional Use request to allow more parking and a variance to allow additional signage
than that allowed by ordinance. These three items will be heard concurrently by the full
Planning Commission.
Parking: The current parking ratio ordinance requires one (1) parking space per 100 SF of gross
floor area. The number of parking spaces required for this project is thus 66 (6,586 / 100). The
ordinance allows for a maximum number of 30% more parking spaces than the number
permitted. Additionally, the ordinance allows for an additional four (4) parking spaces for a
drive-through window, and the project's `curbside' pick-up qualifies for these spaces. The
maximum number of spaces permitted for this project is therefore 90 parking spaces (66 + 30%
+ 4). The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to approve a total of 116 parking
spaces, a conditional use for 26 more spaces than what is permitted by ordinance.
Parking Ratio:
Restaurant
Ratio
Square
Feet
Required
Spaces
Permitted
30% Overage
+ 4 Spaces for
Drive -Up
Proposed
Requested
Overage
TGI
Friday's
1/100
SF
6,586
66 spaces
90
116
26 spaces —
29% over
permitted 90
Signage Variance: The request for a signage variance to allow for additional signage is
described under the Design Overlay District (DOD) findings and listed under the conditions of
approval for the project.
Right-of-way being dedicated: Sufficient right-of-way exists along Van Asche Drive and Mall
Avenue (35 feet from centerline right-of-way).
Street Improvements: No street improvements are required of this developer.
Water/Sewer: Water and sewer are available to the site. Sewer is being extended from the
southwest corner within an existing utility easement, and water will be extended to an existing
water line adjacent to the site in a utility easement in Mall Avenue.
Parks: N/A
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Van Asche Drive (Collector), Mall Avenue (Collector)
K: IReports120051PC Reports105-23-051/SD 05-1468 (TG! Fridays)_F/NALdoc
Design Overlay District:
•
Grcenspacc:
Signage:
The applicant has complied with the 25'grcenspacc
requirement along all rights-of-way.
Monument Sign: An elevation of the proposed monument
sign has been submitted depicting the sign is Icss than 75
SF and 6 feet in height in conformance with City
ordinance.
Monument Sign Variance Request: llrc applicant is
requesting the Planning Commission approve a monument
sign with both the TGI. Friday's name and its associated
slogan "In here it's always Friday" below. the DOD
expressly limits the content of both monument and wall
signage to the name of the business. Surf
recommendation: Approval
Wall Sign: The applicant is allowed one (1) wall sign for
each of the property's street frontages, to be 20% of the
wall area or 200 SF, whichever is Tess. A maximum of two
(2) wall signs are allowed for this project, based on site's
frontage onto two public streets.
IVall Sign Variance Request: The applicant is -requesting
the Planning Commission to approve the following wall
signs:
• Two (2) Targe wall signs depicting "TGI Friday's"
at the restaurant's main entrance, the northeast
corner of the structure. Staff recommendation:
Approval
Two (2) smaller wall signs underneath the large
wall signs depicting TGI Friday's corporate slogan,
"In Here It's Always Friday". Due to these slogans
being on a different wall plane than the larger wall
signs, and due to the slogan not being part of the
corporate name, staff determined these slogans are
each a separate wall sign. Staff recommendation:
See conditions.
• One (I) smaller wall sign depicting "TGI Friday's"
adjacent to the 'curbside' pick-up facility on the
western side of the restaurant. Staff
recommendation: Denial
Additionally, TGI Friday's is requesting directional
signage above the curbside pickup door stating
"Easy Come, Easy Go". This signage is not
K:IRepnnst20051t'C Rrpr.rts105.23.0511S005-1468(tGI Fridays) 1NAL.drx.
•
allowed in the DOD however a' smaller 4 SF
directional wall sign would be allowed at an
entrance or exit for identification. Staff
recommendation: See conditions.
• Curb Cuts: The proposal utilizes a curb cut from Van Asche Drive.
The curb cut meets the minimum distance from an
intersection (250') as required by ordinance. Two shared
access points are proposed through the northwest and
northeast corner of the adjacent Logan's Roadhouse (Lot
16a) property immediately to the south. A
drainage/floodplain is located along the western edge of the
property and precludes access from the west.
• Lighting:
A note has been added to the plat indicating compliance
with this requirement.
• 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 for review.
• Site Coverage: The applicant has complied with the 25% open space
requirement.
• Fencing: N/A
• Outdoor Storage: N/A
• Access: Pedestrian access from the street to the entrance of the
structure by way of a designated walk is provided. Four (4)
bicycle racks are to be provided for multi -modal access.
Tree Preservation: The project would remove all 1,800 SF of tree canopy on the site. However,
no significant trees or groupings exist. The Landscape Administrator has approved tree
preservation measures for this site, and waived the requirement of a Tree Preservation Plan, due
to the approval of the overall Tree Preservation Plan for the CMN Business Park 11.
Recommendation: Staff recommends LSD 05-1468 approval by the Planning Commission
with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Based on the
latest elevations submitted, staff finds all elevations and material samples presented
meet the design standards set forth in the UDC. Full color elevations are lo be
K.iReparts1Z0051PC Reports105-23-051LSD 05-1468 (TGs Fridaysf_FMALdoc
presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission detcmunation of the conditional use request for 116 parking
spaces. Staff has reviewed the conditional use requests granted for other restaurants
in the area allowing extra parking and found an average of 36% overage. The subject
request (29% overage) would be consistent with parking variances granted by the
Planning Commission to other vicinity restaurants. Staff supports a conditional use
request for add:Wona! parking on this site due to its inherent separation from
adjacent and different uses with different peak parking demands.
Planning Commission detcrrnitiation of sign variances.
Staff recommends approval of the monument sign requested with the slogan
"In here it's always Friday" added, which is in keeping 'with other signs and
slogans permitted in the area.
Staffrecommends approval of the two large wall signs depicting TGI Friday's
at the main entrance, given that they meet size requirements.
.Staff recommends denial of the smaller slogans underneath the large wall
�' signs; unless they are incorporated into the overall larger sign and also meet
DO( size requirements, which is also in keeping with other signs permitted in
the area that have a slogan integrated into the sign face.
Staff recommends denial of the additional 'd'Gi Friday's wall sign on the west
facade. Staff has reviewed the sign variance requests granted for other
restaurants in the area allowing extra signage and found that an average of
one additional sign has been allowed when unusual conditions exist on the
site requiring a third sign - such as poor visibility or inability to provide a
monument sign. The decision for approval of a sign variance is based on a set
of criteria that unusual conditions/circumstances are particular to the subject
land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Staff does not find that the
subject site has unusual conditions/circumstances not applicable to other
land, stn/ctures, or buildings in the district that would require additional wall
signs. The site has /sigh visibility front two street frontages and staff is not
aware of special conditions that would warrant a sign variance.
• —Stet reeommends-the-denial-of thc.—'lkrr.sy-Gome--Easy-Go " wall -signage -on
the -west facade.-aur/-reer amends -directional -signage -in aceerdeneelrith-city
ordinanees-to-identify-this-area (maximum-4-SF-waIl-sign)-stattng�Gurb-side
pickup ustomer-pickupor-other:timNen=direetional/identifyrng-signage
PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWED 171E DIRECTIONA1. SIGNAGE
•
"EASY COME; EASY GO" ON THE (VEST FACADE IN ACCORDANCE
tVITII CI77 ORDiNANCI (MAXIMUM 4 SF DIRECI'IONA1. SIGN).
Wall signs shall not project more than 18 inches from the surface upon which They are
mounted, and shall be affixed parallel to the wall or printed on the wall in such a
manner as to read parallel to the wall on which it is mounted, based on City of
Fayetteville Ch. 174 Signs.
Wall signs shall not exceed 20% of the wall arca or 200 SF, whichever is less, based
K:IRepurts120051Pe Rrporu105.25.0511.s/105 /468 (IGI Fridays) F/N41..dac
on Design Overlay District sign ordinances.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the access easement document allowing for the
proposed second access to Logan's shall be filed and a copy provided to the City
Planning Division.
7. In accordance with the Final Plat of CMN Business Park 11, Phase 11, "Each
individual tract developer shall employ an environmental specialist to ensure that the
spirit and letter of the Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will be complied with in the development of the lot." The developer shall comply
with this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Standard Conditions of approval:
8. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street, with
materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building.
Access to the enclosure shall not be visible from the street, pursuant to city ordinance.
Parking lot lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and
utilize high pressure sodium lighting or energy equivalent.
10. All mechanicaUutility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened
using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure.
11. 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)
12. 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 tree preservation. 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.
13. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree
protection measures prior to any land disturbance.
Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area and all utility casements.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans
including tree preservation measures submitted to the Landscape
Administrator.
e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety
K:IReports120051 PC Reports105-23-0511SD 05-1468 (TGI Fridays)_F/NALdoc
•
Wattle
e evi le
ARKANSAS
THE CITY 01' FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
•
•
PC Meeting of May 23, 2005
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
125 W. Mountain St.
Favcncvillc, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator
Date: May 18, 2005
ITEM #: 1,S1) 05-1468 (TGI Friday's)
TREE PRESERVATION PIAN
1. Waived. Tree Preservation measures have been approved for this site, and no
significant trees or groupings exist. A tree preservation plan was previously approved
for the Steele Crossing Subdivision. The decd restricted area identified on the western
edge of lot 16 is this site's tree preservation area. Please clearly identify this arca as a
tree preservation area on an easement plat. Both graphic designations, and a legal
description of this arca should he placed on an casement plat. The signature block for
the Landscape Administrator should reflect the language provided below:
Tree Preservation Area
The Tree Preservation Areas as indicated on this easement plat constitute a covenant running with
the title of the subject property and is denoted for the property owners and their future successors,
assignees or transferees to preserve, protect and maintain existing tree canopy. No tree removal or.
land disturbance as defined within the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code may occur within
the Tree Preservation Area unless approved by the City of Fayetteville. Persons seeking removal of
such Tree Preservation Areas, or requesting to modify the property in such a way as to effect the
canopy within, must seek approval from the City Council through a request made by the Landscape
Administrator of the City of Fayetteville
Approved by Date
City of Fayetteville Landscape Administrator
KUeremyttandsmpe AdmmV'ROJECTShLSD-2005Vrrir FridaystrreePresenzuionRport - PC.doc
with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01
"Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all
incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve
the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
15. Additional conditions:
Planning Commission Action: • Approved 0 Denied
Meeting Date: May 23, 2005
Comments: PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED WITH A VOTE OF 9-0
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:I Reports12005IPC Reponsl05-23-051LSD 05-1468 (TG1 Fridays)_FINALdoc
•
Wtevile
ARKANSAS
THE CITY 0!- FAYE"I'-I'LVILLE. ARKANSAS
LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM
•
PC Meeting of May 23, 2005
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
:telephone: (479) 575-8267
Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Jeremy Pate, landscape Administrator
Date: May 18, 2005
ITEM #: LSI) 05-1468 (TCI Friday's)
Applicable Requirements:
✓
LOfftStieet,Parliing
alCt ,'tF,
/4Commercial-DwIgn
stapdacd's
ifiiiirar
fand�Scrcenin 3yt
✓'Sao
nes k
are
Plan Checklist:
./submitted by applicant
%requested
°tPrchminary Finals* t
Suhm tta�Ys� .,.
aSubmiftalty;.� .So6mdtald
rOf[Sfc f,$aiking and -Loads
wheel stops / curbs
s:.
irrigation
edged landscape beds indicated
species of plant material identified
size of plant material at time of installation indicated
interior landscaping
X
narrow vee lawn (8 ,Rin. width, 17' n length /
tree island f /0' min. width / l tree permi/1 spaces)
perimeter landscaping
side and rear property lines (5' landscaped)
adjacent to street R.0.11' (15' greenspace exclusive for landscaping / 1
street tree every 30 L. F. a continuous planting ojshrubs and ground
cover - 50% evergreen)
/ tree per 15 spaces)
✓ soil amendments notes itu•lude that soil is amended and sod removed
✓ mulching notes indicate mulching around trees and within laru&scape beds.
✓ planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual
A. Veremytatulunpc AdmvtlfRt7JEC1 WSD-2005 in;i FriduystambmpeRenc s-Fr,rm - PY:.duc
k.!s-?Tii*Sr. J
07a
i—_
l
,Xi is !
r/
(., lY3'C FI RAW, 3"W).
_
greenspace adjacent to street
_'__
k
R.O.W..W. (15' wide)
./.
street trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W.
outdoor storage screened with landscaping
landscaped
area (12' min.
fence required
outdoor storage screened with landscaping
non-residential landscape screen when adjacent to residential zones
landscape requirement for setback reduction
,t
greenspace adjacent to street R.O.W..(25' wide)
../
street trees planted every 30'LF. along R.O.W.
it
25% of total site area left in greenspace (80% landscaped)
✓
parking lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping
Recommendation: Approval of the landscape plan associated with LSD 05-1486.
K: Veremy Landsmpe AdminIPROJEC7SV_SD-20051TGL FridayslLandsmpeReview£orm - PC.doc
AItE"McCLE
CONSUL %NG
l inCNfo ro "PrI ENGINEERS. INC
P.O. Box 1229
fayettevilk, Arkansas 72702-1229
479-443-2.777
1AX 479-443-9241
To: The City of Fayetteville
Date: May 16, 2005
Re: Conditional Use Application for Parking Variance — Lot 168 CMN Business Park
REVISIONS BASED UPON MEETINGS WITH CITY PLANNING STAFF
TGI Friday's proposed restaurant is a stand-alone facility consisting of approximately 6,586
square feet of building area. T.G.I. Friday's estimates its Fayetteville restaurant to serve an
average of 800 to 1000 patrons per business day. Hours of operation will be from 11:00 am to
12:00 am Sunday through Thursday and extending closing to 1:00 am Friday and Saturday.
Normal amounts of staff will range between 25 and 30 people during any given time of day.
Per section 172.05 of the UDC, Restaurants require 1 parking space per 100 square feet of GFA
(plus
rmi woo 30%) plus 4 parking spaces per drive -thio window. Therefore our 6,586 square
facilityfoot require between 46 (minimum) and 86 (maximum) parking spaces plus an
additional 4 parking spaces for a traditional drive-thru (50 (minimum) and 90 (maximum)). Similar
to a traditional drive-thru, T.G.I. Friday's plans to provide guest pick-up services, allowing patrons
to call ahead food orders and pick them up without having to actually enter the facility.
Assuming a minimum of 25 parking spaces are to be utilized by T.G.I. Friday's staff and another 3
parking spaces dedicated for the pick up service, a maximum of 62 parking spaces would be
available for restaurant patrons (without the conditional use). The restaurant is proposing a total
of 210 seats. Therefore, in order for T.G.I. Friday's to meet it's expected daily average of 75%
capacity, the average automobile would be required to carry 2.5 people and in order to reach full
capacity the average automobile would be required to carry 3.4 people. T.G.I. Friday's cannot
risk their parking lot Ring to capacity before their dining tables are occupied.
Lot 16 has limited shared parking opportunities. On -street, parallel parking is not an option. Van
Asche Drive on the North, Mall Avenue on the East and Shiloh Drive on the South surrounds Lot
16 on three sides. The existing creek, wetland, and floodway prevent access to the large parking
lots to the West. The entirety of Lot 16 consists of two parcels or land to be utilized by
restaurants (Logan's and T.G.I. Friday's), both with similar peak -use demand times. T.G.I.
Friday's has partnered with the existing Logan's Steakhouse Restaurant to improve access
between the two adjacent sites and thus maximize usage of the parking spaces available.
Proposed are 116 total spaces to be provided to serve the proposed T.G.I. Friday's. This number
represents 26 parking spaces (28.9%) over the maximum number of parking spaces allowed
without obtaining a conditional use. Using the same method of calculating building square footage
as our immediate neighbors, this makes TGI Friday's conditional use request one of the lowest in
the area.
T.G.I. Friday's has traditionally been a very popular restaurant and looks forward to doing
business in the Fayetteville area. As with other popular restaurants in this vicinity, limited parking
capacity has proved to be a persistent challenge- We request that both City Staff recommends
and Planning Commission approves our request for additional parking spaces.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this request,
Thanks,
1- )
Mike G. Mori rr'
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(479)443-2377
AVCE'A4cCLE
CON51JL %NG
I DESIGNED ro SERVEI ENGINEERS, INC.
P.O. Box 1229
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1229
479-443-2377
FAX 479-443-9241
To: The City of Fayetteville
Date: May 16, 2005
Re: Signage Variance — Three Nall Signs Proposed
The proposed TGI Friday's front two collector streets (Van Asche and Mall Ave.) along
it's northern and castem side respectfully and is therefore allowed two (2) wall signs by
ordinance.
Due to both the natural, high degree of visibility of the TGI Friday's lot (Lot I6B) and
the additional connectivity to the Logan's lot, the proposed TGI Friday's has no real rear
or side elevations — all four sides of the building have been reviewed and designed as
though they front a street or intersection. Even the southern, `rear' elevation (the
elevation containing the service yard and trash enclosures) would benefit from receiving
a wall sign due to its high degree of visibility.
TGI Friday's respectfully requests a third, smaller wall sign adjacent to the pick=up
facility along the western side of the building. This pick-up facility and associated wall
sign is intended to be observed by patrons who call-in dinner orders ahead of time and
come to the restaurant to pick them up `curbside'. The intent of this `curbside' pick-up
facility is to have restaurant patrons by-pass the restaurant's main entrance located at the
northeast comer of the building and receive their service from the western side.
The pair of large, stylized TGI Friday's wall signs designates the main entrance to the
restaurant — allowing traditional patrons to come inside and sit down for a meal.
Conversely, the smaller, inconspicuous TGI Friday's wall sign would designate the
smaller, `curbside' entrance to the restaurant. Traditional drive-through facilities direct
traffic around a building, past a ordering kiosk and in the direction of a pick-up window —
relying upon traditional building and monument signage to direct customers to the
facility. Contemporary `curbside' pick-up facilities, lacking the assistance ofa
designated drive-through lane, require an additional, albeit smaller piece of wall signage
to indicate where patrons can pick-up their orders.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this request,
Thanks,
Mike G. Mor
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(479) 443-2377
J:\TGIF\TG1 FRIDAYS DFSIGN.dwg, 5/16/
0:43:56 AM, Morgan
•
•
1
z
-4
C / n •
C'
3
J
-�•-'
. T �
it
�1 .,�
C :
•L
._ N
r.
w
•
ill
:1:,`
fir.
ay
_J
.`
f
CUF051ew TGI FRIDAY'S One Mile View
EFAYE fLL
r O
DF SW SLR CJ p Nd
IN' L] u
„ pwR UO.- a JIQNR NRO r /�
R}F.13 PI , :�: �'��;Y �P�.r �J RO
,
.........-a..
. .. C.}
1... . ems, <f Y , .�-I RA.
r S .
RY/VAT I O0. Cl
f-0 1 RIf.N
N`
C-1-Cl pi a . �1 Pa LI
S 1 a
'T"Tu C _
/r 11 ar CI 03 1 _M .. a ("
'L RO{y 'r 'iY,'U—
. / V GI
SUBJECT PROPERTY ='] t. °3 1C3
:( r
r' is
1 N{ 1:
�1 i1. A4, _( .: No ii..RO
' n0 RO:
C1 C} NO r w• C] _ aa -:' of
Pc
L
1'Til SiI:E�R - �. _ No I ff A r
GI I
\O� i f I
.. IP.5iy 5�0� �. �D Lt,' �EWWM I Ip \ IRF.N
.. I LI .r ' °:..03 'R COP
'f'Q --
Rw , ,' o o-. ]� �tE t �f h
1
PiI RO R(�.1. `} RO .•` Cj .«... . - , NfrIC1- -.,. 1�:.�' -. P0 Bc - I rfw sT'' SEJ• ! f1IN9M111ti
,1..., Ro': 'p..q ... no i RSP. 1 . 9w
"''RO �. 4 r9; No ,P4y C3 PSFW. Ev'+a rf �' �. r
.,. _ NSF. .......
R9J: 1 RyJ ?��
]i .. .f. r.�r . .�... RS f.. i1a'r
No R♦ F r. . , Ra.S. ,
•: LI - �.
�.y• I(nr _I IbFal .. 1 lfi.' Y, r.� ' ..
.YI. fl: u Ro a 0.Yy ..: ;1..
y, A. I P RO NA RV.]L � '1. L] _�,. - RSEJ Ma -.
-&c-
J /
"-rl ai - Ibi.Nn ...1:'." P- - ( - �KTC�Vr ; I �1. R.;.E]UEl sr:. '�. ..
RO. 1. l.:.1
r -v u .: wF ]L. !.': T f f mf
t - : 0.4'lEsi RO �'\• a. J /urlNln sr
Il ': RO ... r.r .Ilj�,r '. _ ILS.., I ' _ �. ..RYJ .. •. .. .. �.• M _
Ri}I� L. r.6 " 1 R"fJ
vib< .. RJFa nEY. .v,., ' t
f.. W r , r a' n4J
I4' �Vl:IliLr '.-.1 C3 L] 1 .n... : .'---------.L.
J rt f' \
RSP 1'
• RY,}I - a5F ]f ':` RlF ilt. j
..r r 1t4J I$fJ 1
MF N T ..r lL}1•L3 SNf NYI •VE p- i
0...-... .. RSF.J �fLV.• -1
Legend Boundary Master Str"t Plan
Subject Property e� Master Street Plan
.i Plvrrrlg Area
CUPOS-)494 00000 -� freeWay]Eryfessway
OVertay O40x1
Mw1 C15/nPal Nimal
`- Ouls:b Cay ® st•v Mess
— — Caaedor
eRFett6blK Cc eclar
0 0.1250.25 0.5 0.75 1
Iles
R.5
Planning Commission •
May 23, 2005
Page 7
CUP 05-1494: (rGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 16B OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE
11. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. and contains
approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to permit 116 parking spaces (26 over
maximum allowed) for the proposed Large Scale Development.
LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development ('[CI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by
MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 1613, CMN
11, 463 E VAN ASCHE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the
development of a restaurant with approximately 6,586 s.f. and 116 parking spaces
proposed.
Ostner: The next item on our agenda is item number five, CUP 05-1494 for TGI
Fridays. If we could have the staff report please.
Pate: Certainly. I would request that the Commission look separately but at the
same time the Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, LSD 05-1468.
the preceding item, the Conditional Use is a request for excess parking
over what is allowed with our current ordinances. The property is located
on Lot 16B of CMN Business Park Phase II. It is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately two acres. The
request is to approve the development of a restaurant with approximately
6,586 sq.ft. with 116 parking spaces proposed. The allowed number of
parking spaces for this type of development with the square footage is 90
with the 30% increase allowed by ordinance and therefore, the Conditional
Use request is a request for 29% over that permitted 90. As you can see in
your Conditional Use staff report, that is definitely within the percentage
that the Planning Commission has approved in this area as well as other
parts of the city for additional parking for the restaurant use. Staff is
supporting that Conditional Use request for excess parking with the
findings of fact in your staff reportwith two conditions. Approval of the
accompanying Large Scale Development plan and Planning Commission
determination of the requested signage, which we will go into here in a
moment. As I mentioned, this property is located in CMN Business Park.
It is between two other existing restaurants, Fuddrucker's and Logan's
Roadhouse. It is located within the 1-540 Design Overlay District.
Therefore, there are specific requirements that must be made and the
applicant must comply with for curb cuts, lighting, exterior appearance,
building materials, site coverage, outdoor storage, access and green space
and signage. Those are specific requirements above and beyond our
standard commercial design ordinances. This property does have street
frontage and ingress and egress on both Mall Avenue and Van Asche
Drive, which are collector streets. 'Me access proposed along Van Asche
Drive is a new access point. The one along Mall Avenue however, is a
Planning Commission•
May 23, 2005
Page 8
shared access point that was planned when this property was subdivided
and they are complying with that requirement. The proposal is to
construct a TGI Friday's restaurant in this location. As I mentioned, it
would be approximately 6,500 sq.ft., staff is recommending approval of
this particular application and find that the development meets our
development ordinances. There are a few issues with the signage that we
will go over with you in our conditions of approval that we have drafted.
Beginning on page 6.4, the conditions of approval are as stated, Planning
Commission determination of commercial design standards. We are
looking at commercial structures, this falls under the purview of the
Planning Commission's findings with regard to both commercial design
standards and exterior appearance of the building in the Design Overlay
District. Based on materials and elevations submitted to date, staff does
find that the elevations and materials submitted meet the design standards
set forth in the Unified Development Code. I believe full color elevations
are to be presented tonight. Item number two, Planning Commission
determination of a Conditional Use request for 116 parking spaces.
Again, staff has reviewed the percentages in this area and finds that they
are compatible to the amount of requested overage. There is a lack of
ability to share parking here because they are all similar uses and
therefore, they have the same parking demand at the same time. I would
reference one restaurant where a Conditional Use was not requested for a
very good reason. O'Charley's has additional parking that could be shared
in that shopping mall area. They did not request a Conditional Use for
additional parking. However, this did not have that same opportunity
without a significant hike to get to this property. We are supporting the
Conditional Use request for additional parking on the property. Item
number three, Planning Commission determination of sign variances. As
we said at the agenda session, there are several variance requests that are
on this property. I will go through those. Staff is recommending approval
of the monument sign requested. The reason this is a variance request is
because the logo that is typically is associated with TGI Fridays which
states "In here it is always Friday." Is not part of the actual business name.
The Design Overlay District, specifically only allows the business name.
There are other restaurants in this area where we have submitted signs and
the Planning Commission has approved signs of this very nature and we
feel that this is in keeping with those monument signs and therefore, are
recommending approval of the sign as proposed. Staff is also
recommending approval of the two larger wall signs proposed given that
they do meet size requirements. Those will be permitted separately at the
time of building permit. That is not actually a variance request, that is just
a finding in the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the smaller
slogans underneath the large wall signs unless they are incorporated into
the overall larger signs and also meet the Design Overlay District size
requirements. The reasoning for this finding is that to be compatible with
the decisions the Planning Commission and staff have made with regard to
Planning Commission. •
May 23, 2005
Page 9
sign permits those slogans are typically associated to the actual sign face,
the overall larger sign. If you see some of those projects out there, all of
them to my knowledge are incorporated with the overall larger sign. Of
course, all of the signs are Planning Commission determination and if a
variance is determined that they could be separated by the Planning
Commission then that is your decision. That is something that you arc able
to grant at this point because it is a Design Overlay District requirement.
Staff is recommending though that those he incorporated within the same
sign. Staff is also recommending denial of the additional TGI Friday's
wall sign on the west facade. This was discussed at the Subdivision
Committee meeting in an effort to articulate the structure more and
provide identification for the pick up area. The findings that we utilize by
ordinance for this particular case such as poor visibility, inability to
provide a monument sign, unusual conditions and circumstances that are
not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the district that
would require additional wall signs. We couldn't make any of those
findings for this sign. And therefore, are recommending denial of that
request. This site has high visibility from two street frontages and staff
was not aware of any special conditions that would warrant this particular
sign variance request. Staff is also recommending a change on the sign
that currently states another slogan, "easy come, easy go" to comply with
our standards a maximum four square feet to identify directional signage
such as curb side pickup or customer pickup or something else of that
nature to identify that in order for us to permit that. I believe that the rest
of the conditions of approval are relatively standard and have either been
discussed or are standard ordinance requirements. If you do have any
further questions feel free to ask.
Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us a
presentation.
Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan. I'm from McClelland Consulting Engineers.
We have with us in the audience today Mr. Ken Alexander, the architect
for the TGI Friday's project and Design Works Studio. Mr. Steve Bell,
President of Tricorp Management Group, TGI Fridays. We are here this
afternoon, we certainly appreciate working together with the city to come
to where we are today. As Jeremy said, we have received a lot of
conditions placed upon us not only from Fayetteville but also within the
Design Overlay District. It looks like it is coming down now after green
space and everything else to a couple of issues here being the signage. We
would like to work through these issues one by one. It is the Planning
Commission's decision to come to a medium ground here. The first one
he was, talking about are the existing two main signs at the entry of the
TGI Friday's. TG1 Friday's has traditionally used the logo "In here it is
always Friday" as part of their corporate identity for some time now. I am
going to turn it over to Steve Bell who can speak about that.
Planning Commission. •
May 23, 2005
Page 10
Bell: Thank you very much. We are excited to be in Fayetteville. As Mike
indicated, there are a couple of issues on signage that we would like to
review with you tonight. Ken Alexander has some elevations that we
would like to present to you that are our building elevations that we would
like you to review. The designs, as you see, are in compliance with the
plans that our Dallas Franchise has requested. There are currently 745
TGI Friday's around the world. This is a new design that they have
recently imposed and you will start to see more and more of. It has the
higher detail on the entry and then higher awnings. The rest of the
elements we tried to go along with staff recommendations and there were
some issues regarding articulation which we tried to address. The western
elevation, the use of this additional sign, we feel like there is somewhat of
a hardship because the monument sign that we are requesting at the corner
of Van Asche and Mall Avenue is skewed a little bit because of the
landscaping requirements. Our signage is in other directions. In driving
around the area we noted that Fuddrucker's has three wall signs, Logan's
has two logo signs plus another neon sign. O'Charley's has three wall
signs. I think the only other sign variance requested was over the front
door. The slogan "In here it is always Friday" has always been traditional
with the Friday's logo sign. In this particular case we have included a
canopy, this is an aluminum canopy. Those are backlit letters with
Plexiglas. They are in front of the actual sign. We saw that Smokey
Bones down the street and Logan's has slogans separated from the same
sign. The "Easy Come, Easy Go" sign I'm sure is less than 4 sq.ft. It
doesn't say customer pickup but we are trying to keep with what is
appropriate for the theme. I was going to conclude the presentation with
the screening wall in the back and I didn't hear whether or not there was
an issue with it. The elevations we first submitted had a masonry wall
across the back. We have in fact, raised those almost 3' and twisted it
around to give it more detail and articulation. We have another set of
windows here on the south side and some masonry columns. To the
average person driving by or in the adjacent parking lot it looks like the
5 building.
Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to
speak to this. We are talking about two items, the Conditional Use and
Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, please step forward. Seeing
no public comment, I will close the public comment section and bring it
back to the Commissioners for discussion.
Vaught: The signage issue, are we looking at that on both items?
Pate: We are. There are specific findings with regard to signage, lighting,
things of that nature within the Conditional Use request so the findings
could be made in either place.
Planning Commission• •
May 23, 2005
Page II
Vaught: I didn't know if we needed to make it specifically on the Conditional Use
and then have the Large Scale refer to it.
Pate: The conditions I have drafted refer to signage and so once those issues are
determined you could include those in the Conditional Use motion.
Allen: The applicant made mention of signage different on surrounding buildings
and I wondered if in your opinion there were any inequities, do you think
we are requiring something different of them than existing restaurants?
Pate: Obviously, there are some. I honestly can't say that I know right off the
top of my head of slogans that are separated. Unfortunately, I didn't go
out there this weekend to check that out. Most of the permits that were
issued that we pulled actual sign permits, the drawings showed the slogan
incorporated with the sign and that really is the basis of our
recommendation. Fuddrucker's is an example. I think it says "World's
Greatest Hamburger" on it. It is incorporated into the actual sign face.
The Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Spirits I believe is incorporated
from my recollection to the actual sign face of that. I think that honestly
we are not opposed at all to having a corporate slogan. It is not something
that outside of the Overlay District would be an issue at all because it
would be considered all part of one sign. Typically what we do when we
issue a sign permit is we draw a box around the TGI Friday's and the "In
here it is always Friday" to determine the square feet and if it meets the
square feet number we permit that as one sign. It is the fact that it is
within the Design Overlay District that it really requires the variance
request. That is why you are seeing it. Obviously, as we see more and
more development in that area within the Design Overlay District we will
probably see more and more of these types of requests to facilitate a little
creativity. Again, it is Planning Commission's determination, we just felt
that it was more appropriate that it be incorporated given the majority of
the signs that we have seen being permitted in that area.
Allen: You do not feel that we are asking more of them than we have of the
existing buildings?
Pate: Honestly, this has not been that large of an issue. I feel that we are
recommending approval in situations where we have recommended
approval in the past for other restaurants.
Vaught: On O'Charley's we allowed a third wall sign just because of the view of
the building coming from Steele. How does this compare? There is an
issue with their monument sign being able to face which road and being
able to see the monument sign before you have to turn in.
Planning Commissio' •
May 23, 2005
Page 12
Pate: For the O'Charley's project specifically, which is in this area as well,
within the Design Overlay District, that applicant actually requested a
third wall sign, they only have two frontages, so it would be much like the
TGI Friday's sign on the west facade. However, in that instance, they
removed the monument sign to .replace it with the wall sign to allow for
another sign that was their offering to get another wall sign in that
location. The reason was the monument sign was very difficult to locate
because of the existing utilities in that area.
Vaught: On directional signage for pickup windows in the area, I know we allow
four square foot wall sign, is that displayed on an awning or is that
typically a sign on the wall next to the door?
Pate: It can be on the awning or the door as
long as it is
parallel to the plain of
the surface and
it is actually part of the
exemptions
so we don't permit that
particular sign
as long as it meets the
four square
feet and is considered
directional, we
don't issue a permit for
that sign.
Vaught: So the issue here is the wording?
Pate: Yes. The fact that I'm not really sure if that sign is four square feet. We
have never seen the size of that particular sign so we just wanted to make
sure that it was no more than four square feet.
Vaught: I guess frommy perspective, that is the least problematic as long as it is
four square feet and it is serving as a directional sign, it is just saying
something other than drive up pick up, it is a more fancy phrase. That
doesn't bother me as long as they meet the four square foot requirement. I
don't know how the other Commissioners feel.
Anthes: I have a separate question. How does the additional paving that is part of
the Conditional Use request affect the floodplain and deed restricted area?
Pate: You can see on page three of five in your report, that. the 100 -year
floodplain line is shown to the west of the property. It is not encroaching
much into that area. A portion of property to the west is deed restricted
and therefore, they cannot encroach into that area at all. Floodplain is
allowed to be developed and has been developed in several instances with
projects in this area as long as it is done appropriately with a floodplain
development permit. There may be 8' at it's maximum point into the
floodplain along the northwest corner.
Anthes: Mr. O'Neal, you are happy with the floodplain calculations that are a
result of the additional pavement?
Planning Commission •
May 23, 2005
Page 13
O'Neal: Yes, as long as the 100 -year flood is not raised over I/10 of a foot then
there can be as much fill in the floodplain as they need.
Anthes: Ok. As far as commercial design standards go, do we have other instances
where we have allowed a board fence in the Design Overlay District?
Pate: Off the top of my head I cannot recall one, that doesn't mean that there is
not one out there. Regular commercial properties and projects they do that
all the time. In the Design Overlay District we have typically
recommended that it be some sort of masonry or dryvit or stucco or
something that is more compatible with the actual structure. Ultimately,
the idea is to screen that use and to be incorporated into the overall
architecture of the building. I think this is the first, I think we saw
something similar to this at our very first submittal at Technical Plat
Review about a month ago, elevations that we made recommendations on
are a little hit different. They do have the masonry wall. I'm not opposed
at all to the masonry wall as long as there is something incorporated from
the structure into that screening, whether it be the materials on the
structure utilizes hardy board or other material such as that.
Anthes: I can go back and forth with that. We have restaurants in the area that
might back up to an area where they might not be viewed or something
like that thatmight be appropriate. When I am looking on the site plan,
from what I understand here is this service court is actually in very close
proximity and visibility to all the parking for Logan's, is that true?
Pate: It does face the north side of Logan's, there is a landscape strip between
the two parking areas but yes, it does face the north side of Logan's.
Anthes: I think in that area I would have to agree with what you were saying about
using some material such as a hardy board or some other material that is
more permanent. that might be more appropriate just because of the
amount of visibility that site has. I guess while I'm talking, I will go to the
signs. My recollection with O'Charley's is we granted the third wall sign
because they traded it for the monument sign and we discussed that at
length here and therefore, they felt that they would be more visible with
that wall sign because of that particular location. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but the reason why the location of that monument sign was so
difficult is because there was a tremendous amount of utilities in the area
and we couldn't put it over the utility easement.
Pate: That is correct.
Anthes: The other buildings that may have additional signs is because they have
additional street frontages, is that correct?
Planning Commission' •
May 23, 2005
Page 14
Pate: I don't believe any of the properties out here have more than two street
frontages. This property does have two street frontages because they are
on a corner so at least two wall signs would be allowed by right. A
variance would be processed to allow a third wall sign when an argument
could be made that there was, some sort of circumstance that would
warrant that.
Anthes: From your report, you are not supporting that variance?
Pate: That is correct.
Anthes: The lighting of the signs in the Design Overlay District, isn't there some
language about backlit?
Pate: I believe it just specifies indirect lighting for all monument and wall
signage. The ordinance states that only indirect lighting may be used for
illumination of all signs. At the time of sign permit we would review the
lighting, just as we have done for all of the projects in that area.
Anthes: Are back lit signs considered directly lit or indirectly, lit?
Pate: If it is has a face with a light shining exterior with the light shining on it
that would be an externally type of sign or a billboard type of face where.
the light is actually shining back on the sign. That is something that
wouldn't be allowed. Again, we would permit those in accordance with
our sign regulations much in keeping with what you see out there in that
area. Logan's, Fuddrucker's, Olive Garden, Red Robin are all compatible
and do meet those ordinance requirements.
Anthes: It seems to me that staff has been really thorough in their report. I have
gone through this case by case and looking through the applicant's request
and I believe that for consistency that staff has made a very good report
and these recommendations to us. The one question I have is the same
one that Christian has, whether or not the four square foot sign says curb
side pickup, how do you designate that. I don't know that I have trouble
with that verbiage either as long as it meets the four square foot
requirement.
Ostner: Mr. Lack, did you have a comment?
Lack: My recollection of requirements are a bit fuzzy about would a wood siding
be allowed? That is what I am gathering as an image here that we are
actually looking at something that would look more like a wall material
than a screen.
Planning Commission •
May 23, 2005
Page l5
Pate: Yes, it would be allowed and it is actually utilized as the primary material
in some structures. Smokey Bones is wood, log lap siding type of
material. That is their image. I don't think we are trying to say that we are
opposed to that. You may remember the conversation at Subdivision
Committee about what is included in the square footage of the building,
we decided to include this portion because it is iatrical to the operations of
the building and we feel therefore, it should be a portion of that structure
and not look like a dumpster screen. It is an iatrical part of the operations
that the building should be designed to meet those requirements if it is
visible. There are situations that staff has recommended. There is not
very much screening when a structure is not visible. It is both fortunate
for TGI Friday's in our opinion that this site does have such high visibility
and traffic in this area. It is unfortunate in the part that the service area
tends to he a lot, more high profile and therefore, need more screening
from the public right of way and ultimately it is my interpretation that that
is why the commercial design standards and design overlay district
requirements for appearance really look at those elevations that are visible
from the public right of way more so than others. Ultimately you are
trying to protect what the public sees from the street right of way. To
answer your question, I am not opposed to wood lap siding, I think that it
is something that the Planning Commission ultimately does determine and
I think if it is incorporated to the building that it would be perfectly fine.
L.ack: I think I do see the distinction between that sort of an image and between a
wood fence infill which would appear to be more of a screen and less
attractive.
Clark: Do you want to consider the lighting variance with the first Conditional
Use or go ahead and do the parking and then go to the second one?
Ostner: I -low do you recommend we break this up Mr. Pate?
Pate: The way I have drafted the conditions right now there are two conditions
of.approval, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large
Scale Development plans with all of the conditions of approval as stated.
You could just strike condition number two and go on and make findings
on that report.
MOTION:
Clark: I would like to move that we approve CUP 05-1494 with one condition,
striking number two.
Ostner: I have a motion for approval of CUP 05-1494.
Myres: Second.
Planning Commission •
May 23, 2005
Page 16
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1494 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Anthes: I have a question. Maybe I have interpreted this wrong. Are those panels
a wood siding material? What are those panels?
Bell: That is called hardy plank. It has a 50 year warranty.
Anthes: I am familiar with the material, I didn't understand that that was the
material during your presentation.
Bell: Were you talking about the fence or the building itself?
Anthes: The fence.
Bell: The fence is another composite fencing material which is similar to hardy
plank that is projecting. We felt like if we ran it horizontally it would
more closely resemble the brick. We have a brick soldier course and
columns there so that would be a compatible use for that material facing
Logan's, which, by the way, has a chain link fence on two sides for
storage.
Ostner: We do have some specific determinations on this Large Scale
Development. The commercial design standards and the elevations are the
first topic. The second topic would be the parking and then the sign
variances are the third determination. On the sign variances we had talked
about allowing the "Easy Come Easy Go" as long as it met the four square
foot rule.
MOTION:
Clark: I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1468 with the
following items of fact. Number one, we do agree that it meets
commercial design standards. Number two, in agreement with the
Conditional Use for parking spaces. Number three, my motion will agree
with all of what staff says until we get down to "Easy Come Easy Go" and
I will change that to approve "Easy Come Easy Go" wall signage as long
as it meets the four foot mandate. All others, I think you can incorporate
the "it's always Friday" in your sign. I think some clever sign person can
accommodate that so that is my motion.
Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page 17
Vaught: I missed what you said about the rear elevation.
Clark: I am going to agree that it meets it.
Myres: I will second it.
Vaught: My feelings on the third wall sign is that I'm not opposed to it. Most of
the sites in this area are difficult because of their visibility and the fact that
they are having to go through extra expense on it that they typically
wouldn't. This site is interesting because they do have a lot of visibility
on the rear and not that much on the front to 1-540 which is what the
Design Overlay District was designed to protect is that view shed. I don't
know that this third wall sign is going to be visible from 1-540 because
you are approaching from Target and that is blocking a good deal of it.
'Their other two wall signs aren't visible from this direction so in a way I
do relate it to something like O'Charley's even though other Conditional
Uses are not precedent setting. I'm not opposed to the third wall sign it'
we could set a size limit on it. I do think it could help facilitate traffic
headed that way. Their monument sign, per those regulations, is not very
high and so you don't have visibility from it in this direction either as well
as you do from other directions. My feelings are I'm not opposed to the
third wall sign. That's my perspective. I do support a third wall sign.
Ostner: I believe if you would like to make a motion to amend the current item on
the floor you are welcome to and we can vote on your amendment. From
my perspective, I understand that that third wall sign wouldn't be that
intrusive or visible, as you say. That is almost my exact reason for not
seeing it's use. I think monument signs are very helpful. I would
encourage the applicant to redo the landscape plan if that monument sign
is not working and there are lots of options on the site for placing that
monument sign. I guess I'm sort of falling on the other side. I think the
monument sign is adequate. We have a motion and a second. If there is
no further discussion I will call for a vote.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1468 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
►� • City Council Ieting of June 21, 2005
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: June 13, 2005
Subject: Planning Commission Appeal for TGI Friday's Restaurant (LSD 05-1468)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted on May 23 to approve a Conditional Ilse and Large
Scale Development for TGI Friday's restaurant, located at the southwest comer of Mall
Avenue and Van Asche Drive. Staff recommended approval of the project, with a total of
fifteen conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Property description: The 2.10 -acre lot is proposed to contain a 6,586 SF TGI Friday's
restaurant with 116 parking spaces, which required a conditional use, as it is above the
number allowed by ordinance. The site is located north of Logan's Roadhouse
• Restaurant, south of Fuddrucker's Restaurant, within the 1-540 Design Overlay District.
Request: The applicant is appealing the conditions of approval set by the Planning
Commission for the project regarding the allowed signage. At the time of Large Scale
Development, the applicant was requesting a total of four (4) sign variances from the I-
540 Design Overlay District requirements. The Planning Commission granted 2/4 of the
variances, finding in favor of the requested monument sign with an attached slogan and
finding in favor of the requested "Easy Come, Easy Go" directional signage for the
curbside pickup area. "1'he Planning Commission did not find in favor of an additional
TGI Friday's wall sign, and found in favor of staffs recommendation to incorporate the
requested "In here it's always Friday" slogan into the larger T(i! Friday's wall sign in
order to consider these as the same sign and to be consistent with other restaurants in the
area.
Signage criteria in a commercial zoning district within the Design Overlay District
(D.O.D.) differs from that within a commercial zoning district outside the Design
Overlay District. Presently, the Planning Commission is the authority for variances on
signage in the D.O.D. An applicant may appeal the Planning Commission's decisions to
the City Council, which is the case here. Outside of the D.O.D., an applicant must
comply with Ch. 174 Signs. [he Zoning & Development Administrator has limited
ability to grant appeals from Ch. 174; beyond that, an applicant must pursue action in
Circuit Court. Variances from numbers of signs allowed is not within the authority of the
• Zoning & Development Administrator to grant, by city ordinance.
• City Councilieeting of June 21; 20(S
Agenda Item Number
Staff finds that the current Design Overlay District ordinance requires Planning •
Commission approval for any wall sign that is beyond the name of the business, such as
the corporate slogan "In here it's always Friday." Staff has supported many instances in
this area for restaurants wanting to utilize these corporate slogans, as evidenced in the
attached photographs. However, in order to recommend these slogans and permit them
accordingly, the slogan is either directly or indirectly incorporated into the larger sign
indicating the name of the business itself. If on another plane, the sign constitutes a
separate wall sign, by ordinance; the number of wall signs allowed within the Design
Overlay District is limited to one per street frontage. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommends in favor of TGI Friday's retaining it's slogan, however it must be
incorporated into the design of the overall sign face, and meet the size requirements set
forth in the Unified Development Code.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on May 23, 2005. The Large
Scale Development was approved with a vote of 9-0-0. The applicant has submitted an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Clerk within the 10 -day appeal
period.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
•
I
W
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:
(I) To protect and enhance the distinctive scenic quality of the 1-540 Highway
Corridor by providing for nonresidential developments which will maximize
preservation and enhancement of the natural, rural, and open character of the
terrain and foliage.
(2) To address the issues of traffic and safety.
(3) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil
erosion, vegetation preservation, drainage and heat islands.
(4) To preserve and enhance the economic value and viability of property within and
near the Overlay District for the 1-540 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.
75 Square Feel
Maximum
•
I
-_ fI
�"
rayett Ile
rflr
Do This Do not do This
Minimum
Minimum Sign
-Distance from
Property Line
(b) Wall signs. One wall sign may be installed per business. Sign area shall
not exceed 20% of that wall area or 200 square feet, whichever is less. A
second sign may be allowed if it is determined that the structure has more
than one front facing a street or highway right-of-way.
(c) Illumination. Only indirect lighting may be used for illumination of all signs. •
(d) Multiple tenants.
The owner of the
building
shall be responsible for the
provisions of one
monument sign with
sign area
for multiple tenants.
(e) Sign content. Content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to the
name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structure,
wall sign or monument.
•
•TayeIri NSAS
THE CITY OF FAY EITEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 \V. Mountain St.
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE relph nc (a 9)5758267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Gamer, Sr. Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pale, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May 17, 00 -S -May 24, 2005
PC Meeting of May 23, 2005
LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development (1'GI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by
MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS fix property located at LOT 16B, CMN I1, 463
E. VAN ASCI-LE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and
contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the development of a restaurant
with approximately 6,586 square feet (SP) and 116 parking spaces proposed.
Property Owner: NANCIIAR INC. Property Owner: MARJORIE BROOKS
Submitted on behalfof: STEVE BELL Planner: JEREMY PATE
• Findings:
Background: The 4.53 -acre Lot 16 parent tract was split into Lots 16a and I6h consisting of
2.43 and 2.10 acres, respectively, in February 2004. The subject Lot 166 is undeveloped and Lot
I6a to the south contains Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant. Logan's Roadhouse Restaurant Large
Scale Development was approved in March 2004. As part of the approval process for Logan's
Roadhouse, a Conditional Use Permit was issued to allow additional parking spaces over the
number allowed by city ordinance.
Property: 'Me subject property is located within the city's Design Overlay District at the
southeast comer of Mall Avenue and Van Ashe Drive, adjacent to Logan's Roadhouse restaurant
and directly across from the Olive Garden restaurant. The property has street frontage and
ingress/egress on both of these Collector streets. A north -south trending drainage on the western
edge of the site contains a floodplain and wetlands. A single stand of willow trees associated
with this unnamed tributary to Mud Creek supports 1,800 SP of tree canopy; however, none of
the trees on the property are significant or champion specimens. Currently there is no
development on the site.
Direction
North
South
• East West__- -
Land Use/Zoning. ..
Land Use
_ Fuddruckers site (Lot I3a) -—
I ..ogan 's Roadhouse (Lot IGa),
Shiloh Drive. I Iwy 7111
O live Garden (Lot 17)
I.ot 15, Commercial Development
Zoning
C-2,._fhorougl1Ctre Commercial
C-2, lhoroughfarc (Conuncrcial
thoroughfare Commercial
Ihoroughlarc Commercial
A IRgwrnl2UO51/'C Repvn105.2I 0.51/SF) 0)-1463 CIGI Itidu/s/ HNAI..doc
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a TGI Friday's restaurant in the Steele Crossing
Subdivision. The subject property, Lot 16b, has frontage onto both Van Ashe Drive and Mall
Avenue, and is located within the Design Overlay District. Along with Large Scale Development
approval, the applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit for 116 parking spaces; a maximum of 90
are allowed by right.
Request: The request is for Large Scale Development approval of the submitted site plans for
TGI Friday's. Associated with this request, but not officially heard until Planning Commission,
is a Conditional Use request to allow more parking and a variance to allow additional signage
than that allowed by ordinance. These three items will be heard concurrently by the full
Planning Commission.
Parking: The current parking ratio ordinance requires one (1) parking space per 100 SF of gross
floor area. The number of parking spaces required for this project is thus 66 (6,586 / 100). The
ordinance allows for a maximum number of 30% more parking spaces than the number
permitted. Additionally, the ordinance allows for an additional four (4) parking spaces for a
drive -through window, and the project's `curbside' pick-up qualifies for these spaces. The
maximum number of spaces permitted for this project is therefore 90 parking spaces (66 + 30%
+ 4). The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to approve a total of 116 parking
spaces, a conditional use for 26 more spaces than what is permitted by ordinance.
Parkine Ratio:
Permitted
Square
Required
30% Overage
Requested
Restaurant
Ratio
Feet
Spaces
+ 4 Spaces for
Proposed
Overage
Drive -U
TGI
1/100
26 spaces —
Friday's
SF
6,586
66 spaces
90
116
29% over
permitted 90
Signage Variance: The request for a signage variance to allow for additional signage is
described under the Design Overlay District (DOD) findings and listed under the conditions of
approval for the project.
Right-of-way being dedicated.- Sufficient right-of-way exists along Van Asche Drive and Mall
Avenue (35 feet from centerline right-of-way).
Street Improvements: No street improvements are required of this developer.
Water/Sewer: Water and sewer are available to the site. Sewer is being extended from the
southwest corner within an existing utility easement, and water will be extended to an existing
water line adjacent to the site in a utility easement in Mall Avenue.
Parks: N/A
•
Adjacent Master Street Plan .Streets: Van Asche Drive (Collector), Mall Avenue (Collector)
•
K:IReports120051PC Reports 105-23-05ILSD 05-1468 (7G! Fridays)_F/NALdoc
� r
I.
Design Overlay District:
• Greenspace: 'Ihe applicant has complied with the 25'greenspace
requirement along all rights -of -way.
Y• Signage: Monument Sign: An elevation of the proposed monument
sign has been submitted depicting (lie sign is less than 75
SF and 6 feet in height in conformance with City
ordinance.
Monument Sign Variance Request: The applicant is
requesting the Planning Commission approve a monument
sign with both the TGI Friday's name and its associated
slogan "In here it's always Friday" below. The DOD
expressly limits the content of both monument and wall
signage to the name of the business. Staff
recommendation: Approval
Wall Sign: The applicant is allowed one (I) wall sign for
each of the property's street frontages, to be 20% of the
wall area or 200 SF, whichever is less. A maximum of two
(2) wall signs are allowed for this project, based on site's
frontage onto two public streets.
• Wall Sign Variance Request: The applicant is requesting
the Planning Commission to approve the following wall
signs:
• Two (2) large wall signs depicting "TGI Friday's"
at the restaurant's main entrance, the northeast
comer of the structure. Staff recommendation:
Approval
• Two (2) smaller wall signs underneath the large
wall signs depicting I GI Friday's corporate slogan,
"In Here It's Always Friday". Due to these slogans
being on a different wall plane than the larger wall
signs, and due to the slogan not being part of the
corporate name, staff determined these slogans are
each a separate wall sign. Staff recommendation:
Sec conditions.
• One (I) smaller wall sign depicting "TGI Friday's"
adjacent to the 'curbside' pick-up facility on the
wester side of the restaurant. Staff
recommendation: Denial
• Additionally, TGI Friday's is requesting directional
• signage above the curbside pickup door stating
"Easy Come, Easy Go". "I his signage is not
K.IReponi12005V'C Reportsl05.2.r05VSD 05.1468 (it'! Fndn5sj F1NAI. doe
allowed in the DOD however a smaller 4 SF
directional wall sign would be allowed at an
entrance or exit for identification. Staff
recommendation: See conditions.
• Curl) Cuts: The proposal utilizes a curb cut from Van Asche Drive.
The curb cut meets the minimum distance from an
intersection (250') as required by ordinance. Two shared
access points are proposed through the northwest and
northeast comer of the adjacent Logan's Roadhouse (Lot
16a) property immediately to the south. A
drainage/floodplain is located along the western edge of the
property and precludes access from the west.
• Lighting: A note has been added to the plat indicating compliance
with this requirement.
• 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 for review.
• Site Coverage: The applicant has complied with the 25% open space
requirement.
• Fencing: N/A
• Outdoor Storage: N/A
• Access: Pedestrian access from the street to the entrance of the
structure by way of a designated walk is provided. Four (4)
bicycle racks are to be provided for multi -modal access.
Tree Preservation: The project would remove all 1,800 SF of tree canopy on the site. However,
no significant trees or groupings exist. The Landscape Administrator has approved tree
preservation measures for this site, and waived the requirement of a Tree Preservation Plan, due
to the approval of the overall Tree Preservation Plan for the CMN Business Park II.
Recommendation: Staff recommends LSD 05-1468 approval by the Planning Commission
with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Based on the
latest elevations submitted, staff finds all elevations and material samples presented
meet the design standards set forth in the UDC. Full color elevations are to be
•
I
A:lReports12005IPC Reporisl05-23-05iLSI) 05-1468 (TGl F'ridays)_FINALdoc
presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
• 2. Planning Commission determination of' the conditional use request for 116 parking
spaces. Staff has reviewed the conditional use requests granted for other restaurants
in the area allowing extra parking and found an average of 36% average. The subject
request (29% overage) would be consistent with parking variances granted by the
Planning Commission to other vicinity restaurants. Staff supports a conditional use
request for additional parking on this site due to its inherent separation from
adjacent and different uses with different peak parking demands.
3. Planning Commission determination of sign variances.
.1 • Staff recommends approval of the monument sign requested with the slogan
p�„OYhd "In here it's always Friday" added, which is in keeping with other signs and
slogans permitted in the area.
• Staff recommends approval of the two large wall signs depicting '1'G! Friday's
at the main entrance, given that they meet size requirements.
✓ Staff recommends denial of the smaller slogans underneath the large wall
4� rA Sl. •n4 unless they are incorporated into the overall larger sign and also meet
DOB size requirements, which is also in keeping with other signs permitted in
the area that have a slogan integrated into the sign face.
Staff recommends denial of the additional TGI Friday's wall sign on the west
Drn`tJ facade. Staff has reviewed the sign variance requests granted for other
restaurants in the area allowing extra signage and found that an average of
• one additional sign has been allowed when unusual conditions exist on the
site requiring a third sign - such as poor visibility or inability to provide a
monument sign. The decision for approval of a sign variance is based on a set
of criteria that unusual conditions/circumstances are particular to the subject
land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Staff does not find that the
subject site has unusual conditions/circumstances not applicable to other
land, str tenures. or buildings in the district that would require additional wall
signs. The site has high visibility from two street frontages and staff is not
aware of special conditions that would warrant a sign variance.
✓ •—Staff-recommends--the denial -of -the -2 i;afy Come. Easy -Go --wolf- ig'nagc on
0 i0vJ the-wese--J �tde- and-recd;ranee•nds-threetipn nae-in-aeecxdanee-wi[h-City
orflinernees-to identify-this-area-(rmraimum-4 Si' nail tgnjstaling "(-wt-side
pieknp ztstomer-pickup or -other similar direeliom44dentifying .signage..-
PLANNING COMMISSION Ai.LOIVED HIE DIRECTIONAL .SIGNAGE
"EASY COME, EASY GO" ON 7'IIii IVES'!' /'AcADE IN ACCORDANCE
IV1771 CITY ORDI1VANCI (MAXIMUM 4 Sr DIREC'T'IONAL .S'/GA.
4. Wall signs shall not protect more than I S Inches Cron the surface upon which they are
mounted, and shall be affixed parallel to the wall or printed on the wall in such a
manner as to read parallel to the wall on which it is mounted, based on City of
Fayetteville Ch. 174 Signs.
• 5. Wall signs shall not exceed 20% of the wall area or 200 SF, whichever is less, based
K:IRe1vnfV0O5U'e Re/sons105-L t.2ill.ti/)05-14/,3 (rfl/iiAm•r) r1A'4/.doe
on Design Overlay District sign ordinances.
6. Prior to issuance of a building pennit, the access easement document allowing for the
proposed second access to Logan's shall be filed and a copy provided to the City
Planning Division.
7. In accordance with the Final Plat of CMN Business Park It, Phase II, "Each
individual tract developer shall employ an environmental specialist to ensure that the
spirit and letter of the Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will be complied with in the development of the lot." The developer shall comply
with this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Standard Conditions of approval:
8. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street, with
materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building.
Access to the enclosure shall not be visible from the street, pursuant to city ordinance.
9. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and
utilize high pressure sodium lighting or energy equivalent.
10. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened
using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure.
11. 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)
12. 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 tree preservation. 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.
13. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree
protection measures prior to any land disturbance.
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area and all utility easements.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans
including tree preservation measures submitted to the Landscape
Administrator.
e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety
K:IReports12005V'C Reportsl05-23-051/SD 05-1468 (7Y:/ Fridays)_FiNALdoc
with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01
• "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all
incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve
the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
I5. Additional conditions:
Planning Commission Action: ■ Approved n Denied
Meeting Date: May 23, 2005
Comments: PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED Wfl'l-1 A VOTE OF 9-0
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: lReporu11005i!'C Feloons105-23.05tL I) 05-1468 (1'G7 Fri days) _friNAL doc
a.
aeevile
Y ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of May 23, 2005 •
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator
Date: May 18, 2005
ITEM #: LSD 05-1468 (TGI Friday's)
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
1. Waived. Tree Preservation measures have been approved for this site, and no
significant trees or groupings exist. A tree preservation plan was previously approved
for the Steele Crossing Subdivision. The deed restricted area identified on the western •
edge of lot 16 is this site's tree preservation area. Please clearly identify this area as a
tree preservation area on an easement plat. Both graphic designations, and a legal
description of this area should be placed on an easement plat. The signature block for
the Landscape Administrator should reflect the language provided below:
Tree Preservation Area
The Tree Preservation Areas as indicated on this easement plat constitute a covenant running with
the title of the subject property and is denoted for the property owners and their future successors,
assignees or transferees to preserve, protect and maintain existing tree canopy. No tree removal or
land disturbance as defined within the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code may occur within
the Tree Preservation Area unless approved by the City of Fayetteville. Persons seeking removal of
such Tree Preservation Areas, or requesting to modify the property in such a way as to effect the
canopy within, must seek approval from the City Council through a request made by the Landscape
Administrator of the City of Fayetteville
Approved by Date
City of Fayetteville Landscape Administrator
K: UeremyO.and cape AdminIPROJECTSVSD-20051TGr Frida}ilT reePreservationReport - PC.doc •
� r
MCEhict! El LA N
coNSUL TING
DEHCN(D U) Sri YE i ENGINEERS, INC.
P.O. Box 1229
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1229
479.443.2377
FAX 479-44 t-474 I
To: The City of Fayetteville
Date: May 16, 2005
Re: Conditional Use Application for Parking Variance - Lot 16B CMN Business Park
REVISIONS BASED UPON MEETINGS WITH CITY PLANNING STAFF
TGI Friday's proposed restaurant is a stand-alone facility consisting of approximately 6,586
square feet of building area. T.G.I. Friday's estimates its Fayetteville restaurant to serve an
average of 800 to 1000 patrons per business day. Hours of operation will be from 11:00 am to
12:00 am Sunday through Thursday and extending closing to 1:00 am Friday and Saturday.
Normal amounts of staff will range between 25 and 30 people during any given time of day.
Per section 172.05 of the UDC, Restaurants require I parking space per 100 square feet of GFA
(plus or minus 30%) plus 4 parking spaces per drive-thru window. Therefore our 6,586 square
foot facility would require between 46 (minimum) and 86 (maximum) parking spaces plus an
additional 4 parking spaces for a traditional drive-thn) (50 (minimum) and 90 (maximum)). Similar
to a traditional drive-thru, T.G.I. Fridays plans to provide guest pick-up services, allowing patrons
to call ahead food orders and pick them up without having to actually enter the facility.
Assuming a minimum of 25 parking spaces are to be utilized by T.G.I. Fridays staff and another 3
parking spaces dedicated for the pick up service, a maximum of 62 parking spaces would be
available for restaurant patrons (without the conditional use). The restaurant is proposing a total
of 210 seats. Therefore, in order for T.G.I. Fridays to meet it's expected daily average of 75%
capacity, the average automobile would be required to carry 2.5 people and in order to reach full
• capacity the average automobile would be required to carry 3.4 people. T.G.I. Fridays cannot
risk their parking lot filling to capacity before their dining tables are occupied.
Lot 16 has limited shared parking opportunities. On -street, parallel parking is not an option. Van
Asche Drive on the North, Mall Avenue on the East and Shiloh Drive on the South surrounds Lot
16 on three sides. The existing creek, wetland, and floodway prevent access to the large parking
lots to the West. The entirety of Lot 16 consists of two parcels of land to be utilized by
restaurants (Logan's and T.G.I. Friday's), both with similar peak -use demand times. T.G.I.
Friday's has partnered with the existing Logan's Steakhouse Restaurant to improve access
between the two adjacent sites and thus maximize usage of the parking spaces available.
Proposed are 116 total spaces to be provided to serve the proposed T.G.I. Fridays. This number
represents 26 parking spaces (28.9%) over the maximum number of parking spaces allowed
without obtaining a conditional use. Using the same method of calculating building square footage
as our immediate neighbors, this makes TGI Friday's conditional use request one of the lowest in
the area.
T.G.I. Friday's has traditionally been a very popular restaurant and looks forward to doing
business in the Fayetteville area. As with other popular restaurants in this vicinity, limited parking
capacity has proved to be a persistent challenge. We request that both City Staff recommends
and Planning Commission approves our request for additional parking spaces.
Please let me know it you have any questions or concerns regarding this request,
Thanks,
Mike G. MorgSd
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(479) 443-2377
MCECONSULTING
DESIGNED EO sERVE i ENGINEERS, INC.
To: The City of Fayetteville
Date: May 16, 2005
Re: Signage Variance —Three Wall Signs Proposed
P.O. Box 1229
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72 702-122 9
479-443-2377 •
FAX 479-443-9241
The proposed TGI Friday's front two collector streets (Van Asche and Mall Ave.) along
it's northern and eastern side respectfully and is therefore allowed two (2) wall signs by
ordinance.
Due to both the natural, high degree of visibility of the TGI Friday's lot (Lot 16B) and
the additional connectivity to the Logan's lot, the proposed TGI Friday's has no real rear
or side elevations — all four sides of the building have been reviewed and designed as
though they front a street or intersection. Even the southern, `rear' elevation (the
elevation containing the service yard and trash enclosures) would benefit from receiving
a wall sign due to its high degree of visibility.
TGI Friday's respectfully requests a third, smaller wall sign adjacent to the pick-up
facility along the western side of the building. This pick-up facility and associated wall
sign is intended to be observed by patrons who call -in dinner orders ahead of time and
come to the restaurant to pick them up `curbside'. The intent of this `curbside' pick-up
facility is to have restaurant patrons by-pass the restaurant's main entrance located at the
northeast comer of the building and receive their service from the western side.
The pair of large, stylized TGI Friday's wall signs designates the main entrance to the
restaurant — allowing traditional patrons to come inside and sit down for a meal.
Conversely, the smaller, inconspicuous TGI Friday's wall sign would designate the
smaller, `curbside' entrance to the restaurant. Traditional drive -through facilities direct
traffic around a building, past a ordering kiosk and in the direction of a pick-up window —
relying upon traditional building and monument signage to direct customers to the
facility. Contemporary `curbside' pick-up facilities, lacking the assistance of a
designated drive -through lane, require an additional, albeit smaller piece of wall signage
to indicate where patrons can pick-up their orders.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this request,
Thanks,
Mike G. M®rr1
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(479) 443-2377
•
•
j � l
•
•
•
•
t'.
Q
ue6pW 'WV 9S:£b:Ol SOOZ/9t/S '&MP'NOIS30 SAVOMJ W1\iI>1\:(
•
• V I_
• Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page 7
• CUP 05-1494: (TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSIJI;PING
ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 1613 OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE
II. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to permit 116 parking spaces (26 over
maximum allowed) for the proposed Large Scale Development.
LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development (TGI FRIDAY'S, 173): Submitted by
MCCLELLAND CONSUI;I'ING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 16B, CMN
II, 463 E VAN ASCIIE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE'
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the
development of a restaurant with approximately 6,586 s.f. and 116 parking spaces
proposed.
Ostner: The next item on our agenda is item number five, CUP 05-1494 fir TGI
Fridays. If we could have the staff report please.
Pate: Certainly. I would request that the Commission look separately but at the
same time the Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, LSD 05-1468.
the preceding item, the Conditional Use is a request for excess parking
over what is allowed with our current ordinances. The property is located
on Lot 16B of CMN Business Park Phase II. It is zoned C-2,
• Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately two acres. The
request is to approve the development of a restaurant with approximately
6,586 sq.ft. with 116 parking spaces proposed. The allowed number of
parking spaces for this type of development with the square footage is 90
with the 30% increase allowed by ordinance and therefore, the Conditional
Use request is a request for 29% over that permitted 90. As you can see in
your Conditional Use staff report, that is definitely within the percentage
that the Planning Commission has approved in this area as well as other
parts of the city for additional parking for the restaurant use. Staff is
supporting that Conditional Use request for excess parking with the
findings of fact in your staff report with two conditions. Approval of the
accompanying Large Scale Development plan and Planning Commission
determination of the requested signage, which we will go into here in a
moment. As I mentioned, this property is located in CMN Business Park.
It is between two other existing restaurants, Fuddrucker's and Logan's
Roadhouse. It is located within the 1-540 Design Overlay District.
Therefore, there are specific requirements that must he made and the
applicant must comply with for curb cuts, lighting, exterior appearance,
building materials, site coverage, outdoor storage, access and green space
and signage. Those arc specific requirements above and beyond our
standard commercial design ordinances. This property does have street
frontage and ingress and egress on both Mall Avenue and Van Asche
• Drive, which are collector streets. The access proposed along Van Asche
Drive is a new access point. The one along Mall Avenue however, is a
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 8
shared access point that was planned when this property was subdivided •
and they are complying with that requirement. The proposal is to
construct a TGI Friday's restaurant in this location. As I mentioned, it
would be approximately 6,500 sq.ft., staff is recommending approval of
this particular application and find that the development meets our
development ordinances. There are a few issues with the signage that we
will go over with you in our conditions of approval that we have drafted.
Beginning on page 6.4, the conditions of approval are as stated, Planning
Commission determination of commercial design standards. We are
looking at commercial structures, this falls under the purview of the
Planning Commission's findings with regard to both commercial design
standards and exterior appearance of the building in the Design Overlay
District. Based on materials and elevations submitted to date, staff does
find that the elevations and materials submitted meet the design standards
set forth in the Unified Development Code. I believe full color elevations
are to be presented tonight. Item number two, Planning Commission
determination of a Conditional Use request for 116 parking spaces.
Again, staff has reviewed the percentages in this area and finds that they
are compatible to the amount of requested overage. There is a lack of
ability to share parking here because they are all similar uses and
therefore, they have the same parking demand at the same time. I would
reference one restaurant where a Conditional Use was not requested for a
very good reason. O'Charley's has additional parking that could be shared •
in that shopping mall area. They did not request a Conditional Use for
additional parking. However, this did not have that same opportunity
without a significant hike to get to this property. We are supporting the
Conditional Use request for additional parking on the property. Item
number three, Planning Commission determination of sign variances. As
we said at the agenda session, there are several variance requests that are
on this property. I will go through those. Staff is recommending approval
of the monument sign requested. The reason this is a variance request is
because the logo that is typically is associated with TGI Fridays which
states "In here it is always Friday." Is not part of the actual business name.
The Design Overlay District specifically only allows the business name.
There are other restaurants in this area where we have submitted signs and
the Planning Commission has approved signs of this very nature and we
feel that this is in keeping with those monument signs and therefore, are
recommending approval of the sign as proposed. Staff is also
recommending approval of the two larger wall signs proposed given that
they do meet size requirements. Those will be permitted separately at the
time of building permit. That is not actually a variance request, that is just
a finding in the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the smaller
slogans underneath the large wall signs unless they are incorporated into
the overall larger signs and also meet the Design Overlay District size
requirements. The reasoning for this finding is that to be compatible with •
the decisions the Planning Commission and staff have made with regard to
• Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page 9
• sign permits those slogans arc typically associated to the actual sign face,
the overall larger sign. If you see some of those projects out there, all of
them to my knowledge are incorporated with the overall larger sign. Of
course, all of the signs are Planning Commission determination and if a
variance is determined that they could be separated by the Planning
Commission then that is your decision. That is something that you are able
to grant at this point because it is a Design Overlay District requirement.
Staff is recommending though that those be incorporated within the same
sign. Staff is also recommending denial of the additional TGI Friday's
wall sign on the west facade. This was discussed at the Subdivision
Committee meeting in an effort to articulate the structure more and
provide identification for the pick up area. The findings that we utilize by
ordinance for this particular case such as poor visibility, inability to
provide a monument sign, unusual conditions and circumstances that are
not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the district that
would require additional wall signs. We couldn't make any of those
findings for this sign. And therefore, are recommending denial of that
request. This site has high visibility from two street frontages and staff
was not aware of any special conditions that would warrant this particular
sign variance request. Sta1.1• is also recommending a change on the sign
that currently states another slogan, "easy come, easy go" to comply with
our standards a maximum four square feet to identify directional signage
• such as curb side pickup or customer pickup or something else of that
nature to identify that in order for us to permit that. I believe that the rest
of the conditions of approval arc relatively standard and have either been
discussed or arc standard ordinance requirements. If you do have any
further questions feel free to ask.
Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us a
presentation.
Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan. I'm from McClelland Consulting Engineers.
We have with us in the audience today Mr. Ken Alexander, the architect
for the TGI Friday's project and Design Works Studio. Mr. Steve Bell,
President of Tricorp Management Group, TGI Fridays. We are here this
afternoon, we certainly appreciate working together with the city to come
to where we are today. As Jeremy said, we have received a lot of
conditions placed upon us not only from Fayetteville but also within the
Design Overlay District. It looks like it is coming down now after green
space and everything else to a couple of issues here being the signage. We
would like to work through these issues one by one. It is the Planning
Commission's decision to come to a medium ground here. The first one
he was. talking about are the existing two main signs at the entry of the
TGI Friday's. TGI Friday's has traditionally used the logo "In here it is
• always Friday" as part of their corporate identity for some time now. I am
going to turn it over to Steve Bell who can speak about that.
Planning Commission— •
May 23, 2005
Page 10
Bell: Thank you very much. We are excited to be in Fayetteville. As Mike •
indicated, there are a couple of issues on signage that we would like to
review with you tonight. Ken Alexander has some elevations that we
would like to present to you that are our building elevations that we would
like you to review. The designs, as you see, are in compliance with the
plans that our Dallas Franchise has requested. There are currently 745
TGI Friday's around the world. This is a new design that they have
recently imposed and you will start to see more and more of. It has the
higher detail on the entry and then higher awnings. The rest of the
elements we tried to go along with staff recommendations and there were
some issues regarding articulation which we tried to address. The western
elevation, the use of this additional sign, we feel like there is somewhat of
a hardship because the monument sign that we are requesting at the comer
of Van Asche and Mall Avenue is skewed a little bit because of the
landscaping requirements. Our signage is in other directions. In driving
around the area we noted that Fuddrucker's has three wall signs, Logan's
has two logo signs plus another neon sign. O'Charley's has three wall
signs. I think the only other sign variance requested was over the front
door. The slogan "In here it is always Friday" has always been traditional
with the Friday's logo sign. In this particular case we have included a
canopy, this is an aluminum canopy. Those are backlit letters with
Plexiglas. They are in front of the actual sign. We saw that Smokey •
Bones down the street and Logan's has slogans separated from the same
sign. The "Easy Come, Easy Go" sign I'm sure is less than 4 sq.ft. It
doesn't say customer pickup but we are trying to keep with what is
appropriate for the theme. I was going to conclude the presentation with
the screening wall in the back and I didn't hear whether or not there was
an issue with it. The elevations we first submitted had a masonry wall
across the back. We have in fact, raised those almost 3' and twisted it
around to give it more detail and articulation. We have another set of
windows here on the south side and some masonry columns. To the
average person driving by or in the adjacent parking lot it looks like the
building.
Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to
speak to this. We are talking about two items, the Conditional Use and
Large Scale Development for TGI Friday's, please step forward. Seeing
no public comment, I will close the public comment section and .bring it
back to the Commissioners for discussion.
Vaught: The signage issue, are we looking at that on both items?
Pate: We are. There are specific findings with regard to signage, lighting,
things of that nature within the Conditional Use request so the findings •
could be made in either place.
• Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page II
• Vaught: I didn't know if we needed to make it specifically on the Conditional Use
and then have the Large Scale refer to it.
Pate: The conditions I have drafted refer to signage and so once those issues are
determined you could include those in the Conditional Use motion.
Allen: The applicant made mention of signage different on surrounding buildings
and I wondered if in your opinion there were any inequities, do you think
we are requiring something different of them than existing restaurants?
Pate: Obviously, there are some. I honestly can't say that I know right off the
top of my head of slogans that are separated. Unfortunately, I didn't go
out there this weekend to check that out. Most of the permits that were
issued that we pulled actual sign permits, the drawings showed the slogan
incorporated with the sign and that really is the basis of our
recommendation. Fuddrucker's is an example. I think it says "World's
Greatest Hamburger" on it. It is incorporated into the actual sign face.
The Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Spirits I believe is incorporated
from my recollection to the actual sign face of that. I think that honestly
we are not opposed at all to having a corporate slogan. It is not something
that outside of the Overlay District would be an issue at all because it
• would he considered all part of one sign. Typically what we do when we
issue a sign permit is we draw a box around the TGI Friday's and the "In
here it is always Friday" to determine the square feet and if it meets the
square feet number we permit that as one sign. It is the fact that it is
within the Design Overlay District that it really requires the variance
request. That is why you are seeing it. Obviously, as we see more and
more development in that area within the Design Overlay District we will
probably see more and more of these types of requests to facilitate a little
creativity. Again, it is Planning Commission's determination, we just felt
that it was more appropriate that it be incorporated given the majority of
the signs that we have seen being permitted in that area.
Allen: You do not feel that we are asking more of them than we have of the
existing buildings?
Pate: Honestly, this has not been that large of an issue. I feel that we arc
recommending approval in situations where we have recommended
approval in the past for other restaurants.
Vaught: On O'Charley's we allowed a third wall sign just because of the view of
the building coming from Steele. I -low does this compare? There is an
issue with their monument sign being able to face which road and being
• able to see the monument sign before you have to turn in.
Planning Commission— •
May 23, 2005
Page 12
Pate: For the O'Charley's project specifically, which is in this area as well, •
within the Design Overlay District, that applicant actually requested a
third wall sign, they only have two frontages, so it would be much like the
TGI Friday's sign on the west facade. However, in that instance, they
removed the monument sign to replace it with the wall sign to allow for
another sign that was their offering to get another wall sign in that
location. The reason was the monument sign was very difficult to locate
because of the existing utilities in that area.
Vaught: On directional signage for pickup windows in the area, I know we allow
four square foot wall sign, is that displayed on an awning or is that
typically a sign on the wall next to the door?
Pate: It can be on the awning or the door as
long as it is parallel to the plain of
the surface and
it is actually
part of the
exemptions so we don't permit that
particular sign
as long as it
meets the
four square feet and is considered
directional, we
don't issue a
permit for
that sign.
Vaught: So the issue here is the wording?
Pate: Yes. The fact that I'm not really sure if that sign is four square feet. We
have never seen the size of that particular sign so we just wanted to make
sure that it was no more than four square feet. •
Vaught: I guess from my perspective, that is the least problematic as long as it is
four square feet and it is serving as a directional sign, it is just saying
something other than drive up pick up, it is a more fancy phrase. That
doesn't bother me as long as they meet the four square foot requirement. I
don't know how the other Commissioners feel.
Anthes: I have a separate question.
How does
the additional
paving that is
part of
the Conditional Use request
affect the
floodplain and
deed restricted
area?
Pate: You can see on page three of five in your report, that the 100 -year
floodplain line is shown to the west of the property. It is not encroaching
much into that area. A portion of property to the west is deed restricted
and therefore, they cannot encroach into that area at all. Floodplain is
allowed to be developed and has been developed in several instances with
projects in this area as long as it is done appropriately with a floodplain
development permit. There may be 8' at it's maximum point into the
floodplain along the northwest corner.
Anthes: Mr. O'Neal, you are happy with the floodplain calculations that are a
result of the additional pavement?
•
Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page 13
• O'Neal: Yes, as long as the 100 -year flood is not raised over 1/10 of a foot then
there can be as much fill in the floodplain as they need.
Anthes: Ok. As far as commercial design standards go, do we have other instances
where we have allowed a board fence in the Design Overlay District?
Pate: Off the top of my head I cannot recall one, that doesn't mean that there is
not one out there. Regular commercial properties and projects they do that
all the time. In the Design Overlay District we have typically
recommended that it be some sort of masonry or dryvit or stucco or
something that is more compatible with the actual structure. Ultimately,
the idea is to screen that use and to be incorporated into the overall
architecture of the building. I think this is the first, I think we saw
something similar to this at our very first submittal at Technical Plat
Review about a month ago, elevations that we made recommendations on
are a little bit different. They do have the masonry wall. I'm not opposed
at all to the masonry wall as long as there is something incorporated from
the structure into that screening, whether it be the materials on the
structure utilizes hardy board or other material such as that.
Anthes: I can go back and forth with that. We have restaurants in the area that
might back up to an area where they might not be viewed or something
• like that that might be appropriate. When I am looking on the site plan,
from what I understand here is this service court is actually in very close
proximity and visibility to all the parking for Logan's, is that true?
Pate: It does lace the north side of Logan's, there is a landscape strip between
the two parking areas but yes, it does face the north side of Logan's.
Anthes: I think in that area I would have to agree with what you were saying about
using some material such as a hardy board or some other material that is
more permanent that might be more appropriate just because of the
amount of visibility that site has. I guess while I'm talking, I will go to the
signs. My recollection with O'Charley's is we granted the third wall sign
because they traded it for the monument sign and we discussed that at
length here and therefore, they felt that they would be more visible with
that wall sign because of that particular location. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but the reason why the location of that monument sign was so
difficult is because there was a tremendous amount of utilities in the area
and we couldn't put it over the utility easement.
Pate: That is correct.
Anthes: The other buildings that may have additional signs is because they have
• additional street frontages, is that correct?
Planning Commission— •
May 23, 2005
Page 14
Pate: I don't believe any of the properties out here have more than two street •
frontages. This property does have two street frontages because they are
on a comer so at least two wall signs would be allowed by right. A
variance would be processed to allow a third wall sign when an argument
could be made that there was some sort of circumstance that would
warrant that.
Anthes: From your report, you are not supporting that variance?
Pate: That is correct.
Anthes: The lighting of the signs in the Design Overlay District, isn't there some
language about backlit?
Pate: I believe it just specifies indirect lighting for all monument and wall
signage. The ordinance states that only indirect lighting may be used for
illumination of all signs. At the time of sign permit we would review the
lighting, just as we have done for all of the projects in that area.
Anthes: Are back lit signs considered directly lit or indirectly lit?
Pate: If it is has a face with a light shining exterior with the light shining on it
that would be an externally type of sign or a billboard type of face where •
the light is actually shining back on the sign. That is something that
wouldn't be allowed. Again, we would permit those in accordance with
our sign regulations much in keeping with what you see out there in that
area. Logan's, Fuddrucker's, Olive Garden, Red Robin are all compatible
and do meet those ordinance requirements.
Anthes: It seems to me that staff has been really thorough in their report. I have
gone through this case by case and looking through the applicant's request
and I believe that for consistency that staff has made a very good report
and these recommendations to us. The one question I have is the same
one that Christian has, whether or not the four square foot sign says curb
side pickup, how do you designate that. I don't know that I have trouble
with that verbiage either as long as it meets the four square foot
requirement.
Ostner: Mr. Lack, did you have a comment?
Lack: My recollection of requirements are a bit fuzzy about would a wood siding
be allowed? That is what I am gathering as an image here that we are
actually looking at something that would look more like a wall material
than a screen.
•
• Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page 15
• Pate: Yes, it would be allowed and it is actually utilized as the primary material
in some structures. Smokey Bones is wood, log lap siding type of
material. That is their image. I don't think we are trying to say that we are
opposed to that. You may remember the conversation at Subdivision
Committee about what is included in the square footage of the building,
we decided to include this portion because it is iatrical to the operations of
the building and we feel therefore, it should be a portion of that structure
and not look like a dumpster screen. It is an iatrical part of the operations
that the building should be designed to meet those requirements if it is
visible. There are situations that staff has recommended. There is not
very much screening when a structure is not visible. It is both fortunate
for TGI Friday's in our opinion that this site does have such high visibility
and traffic in this area. It is unfortunate in the part that the service area
tends to be a lot more high profile and therefore, need more screening
from the public right of way and ultimately it is my interpretation that that
is why the commercial design standards and design overlay district
requirements for appearance really look at those elevations that are visible
from the public right of way more so than others. Ultimately you are
trying to protect what the public sees from the street right of way. To
answer your question, I am not opposed to wood lap siding, I think that it
is something that the Planning Commission ultimately does determine and
I think if it is incorporated to the building that it would be perfectly tine.
• Lack: I think I do see the distinction between that sort of an image and between a
wood fence infill which would appear to be more of a screen and less
attractive.
Clark: Do you want to consider the lighting variance with the first Conditional
Use or go ahead and do the parking and then go to the second one?
Ostner: I -low do you recommend we break this up Mr. Pate?
Pate: The way I have drafted the conditions right now there are two conditions
of approval, Planning Commission approval of the accompanying Large
Scale Development plans with all of the conditions of approval as stated.
You could just strike condition number two and go on and make findings
on that report.
MOTION:
Clark: I would like to move that we approve CUP 05-1494 with one condition,
striking number two.
Ostner: I have a motion for approval of CUP 05-1494.
• Myres: Second.
Planning Commission• •
May 23, 2005
Page 16
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1494 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Anthes: I have a question. Maybe I have interpreted this wrong. Are those panels
a wood siding material? What are those panels?
Bell: That is called hardy plank. It has a 50 year warranty.
Anthes: I am familiar with the material, I didn't understand that that was the
material during your presentation.
Bell: Were you talking about the fence or the building itself?
Anthes: The fence.
Bell: The fence is another composite fencing material which is similar to hardy
plank that is projecting. We felt like if we ran it horizontally it would
more closely resemble the brick. We have a brick soldier course and
columns there so that would be a compatible use for that material facing
Logan's, which, by the way, has a chain link fence on two sides for
storage.
Ostner: We do have some specific determinations on this Large Scale
Development. The commercial design standards and the elevations are the
first topic. The second topic would be the parking and then the sign
variances are the third determination. On the sign variances we had talked
about allowing the "Easy Come Easy Go" as long as it met the four square
foot rule.
MOTION:
Clark: I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1468 with the
following items of fact. Number one, we do agree that it meets
commercial design standards. Number two, in agreement with the
Conditional Use for parking spaces. Number three, my motion will agree
with all of what staff says until we get down to "Easy Come Easy Go" and
I will change that to approve "Easy Come Easy Go" wall signage as long
as it meets the four foot mandate. All others, I think you can incorporate
the "it's always Friday" in your sign. I think some clever sign person can
accommodate that so that is my motion.
•
r
LA
•
Planning Commission • •
May 23, 2005
Page /7
• Vaught: I missed what you said about the rear elevation.
Clark: I am going to agree that it meets it.
Myres: I will second it.
Vaught: My feelings on the third wall sign is that I'm not opposed to it. Most of
the sites in this area are difficult because of their visibility and the fact that
they are having to go through extra expense on it that they typically
wouldn't. This site is interesting because they do have a lot of visibility
on the rear and not that much on the front to 1-540 which is what the
Design Overlay District was designed to protect is that view shed. I don't
know that this third wall sign is going to be visible from 1-540 because
you are approaching from Target and that is blocking a good deal of it.
Their other two wall signs aren't visible from this direction so in a way I
do relate it to something like O'Charley's even though other Conditional
Uses are not precedent setting. I'm not opposed to the third wall sign if
we could set a size limit on it. I do think it could help facilitate traffic
headed that way. Their monument sign, per those regulations, is not very
high and so you don't have visibility from it in this direction either as well
as you do from other directions. My feelings are I'm not opposed to the
third wall sign. That's my perspective. I do support a third wall sign.
• Ostner: I believe if you would like to make a motion to amend the current item on
the floor you are welcome to and we can vote on your amendment. From
my perspective, I understand that that third wall sign wouldn't be that
intrusive or visible, as you say. That is almost my exact reason for not
seeing it's use. I think monument signs are very helpful. I would
encourage the applicant to redo the landscape plan if that monument sign
is not working and there are lots of options on the site for placing that
monument sign. I guess I'm sort of falling on the other side. I think the
monument sign is adequate. We have a motion and a second. If there is
no further discussion I will call for a vote.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1468 was
approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
•
I•
• __ ..d51 L,-LVr1.CN
'
•
•
a y.. w.v
J-,
VV
J
..EST ELEV4T;c>N
SY-
r-. I
-Y& I
v
ITV. '.. .,:
-- .--- , f: / --•
! i �f ...�. i r M1 r
•..• I I , I,----
•I.,. • ___.
_______a____
•---- __4
r- .� .. �� ..n r" ---- •J
---
r %� + ,�—_—., s
f�, ---
t y i• •:•
.___•_
---/• •
--•
—
__
Y"Sr.';1 '.s -- f ...sd
r r
W1fc'aVti'
't
1����
•
'lull"---
=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
—
HUIIU
• 15>n`�:
».
Pj)
4Th 4
Al
l...
l y
/ r.'.
��
�e:�, $,
Y.tray
Y •
YS .l.h
�: .�lx.
x r
..r5':.)..—_—_—_•
;S
—_—_—_
— __.
as
__—_—•,.$
••5
• --_.
/ /
,; ,jam__.sass
__
saas
sass
ass ..--..__.
1___—_.
sass.
a
J ----.
'M FERE, IT'S ALWAYS FRIDAY"
61GNAGE
'� WEST ELEVATIONte1sv
Clarice Pearman - Res. 134-05 Page 1
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 7/12/05 4:45PM
Subject: Res, 134-05
Jeremy,
Attached is a copy of the resolution passed by City Council, July 5, 2005 regarding the appeal of LSD 05-
1568, T G.I. Friday's.
Thanks.
Clarice
4
rE t
4w
•
p.
1 H
0
J:ITGIF\TGI FRIDAYS DESIGN.th.i 5/16/2085 &26:2t PM, Morgan
0
•
c1
•
Co
t
eg
m
p
�
n
naf7.i`§
fi
o
m
H
—I
{.
s
IFo
II
S
o
p
.
E f
58a�
•
C
3
A�6acn
m
v
df
i
®0I
OIIII
•111111••0
III 1%- 1sL ct•.\
•aFw
aa ]
gggg
S 3
!uIIIhl'!!Ie!jIf�
¢5 • {{i
n
,I �!il
3 {Jddl
tld+
f!
'!
IIt
a!
I
rlellon d/+
�..ae.s
T.G.I.
Ftva
I ---I
Iryore fed
rJ�_ FRIDAY'S
s �
s•
,�
4
Ja Li a'SSrvp ! \ni bni
'.Y:Y Nak�,uS
i • J� �� .i': �lY. 1_ �: I a. a
•� F' f9 L `C •fn'i
l 41 f =Y' F•'•
fA Y H C k
rl � )N
fi �l
xe.Am v'a�`
■■ ■■■ R L..v
U /
ku l
YrC /
Pn ak¢
S..`m/'%s�v°iirmadamii�"aEE�m"'6n�mmcri
R.cass wis�es�vwutYrie�a
"R��r_sr m.
, ivr�ryf Y'
f •CLaF?" '- nF Is,n ,OC+64Ff..t u< wfl
,y RrvF , RP:fls pwCVletiaFlAXIl x'SCVr f
aA, m.t Oeay.+.'ao�iae�ne'rt�xnr t, `sniwR� M Z4 aT S�l_6p_@A_P��0'IRKvM5 Wt'
.s Siv
MfP!�laaa4'
i( • �'. ' tlLy� u lam.
��� �y
• }
f _ S- „r >«ra;. _ice•. • .' •�,w
i.
HI
u
_z�..�.i .+i F
• �MeN � •
•wWa x
I�YOI Li '6
.»rrne
-Ili.. i.Wf{q 1• I�� •
riisr^tw��r riRfRt 1 Y atr
Came ^sm Q. •vl WI � iw^
�rn�iwc•u.m�ri Lx "" lC W6i.LI1�7.M\YfYC•IY Ylr
R s
Y M•^j•MW4`fY ICM1[l•.RC l2 S P+W ;{LVW
_!®�.
� T AiFYCIfL�LaLR Y.t]!1 S_4 1•. 9.YSµfllLiaLYcryF 9OLfiiW ®'
u vice®�fk (,
i
_ at!__ _ ____ I I I
lvi ii.Si' T H
6�l_Wl f v
.I.SN. 1 f4 �.CS�G✓4
4S4 Ai p_�Ofy{ T
•7
a# p I
yY� o- i w i�a: � •J'S.
-' :-nth
.• . jt._ srI �- a
•
•
r Y_
' a cni'a s 3 Yw
yt
6RA
1
�fL�
t. 3yi iXj .,-
`Y.w=.
rc Tib..n.f ...
vv
•i 1- �h_f ._ �•
sit&TsSUS
4fl ' ; wn ri ,.�. y .rsuY". °"'c'. �C°i;r.
ii 'ae 41 x.i 1 • a- 4 {R Se •' u�.L a,
L�.e qAK•YM Obi R14 R^ Y iT`..� .Jp r s4`a
t a yam ;At.
♦ 4 1 icy , a4F 1. f q v '• - -a.
f f5{YpTI:. Z ` IYis - +
�y"
�41 ri s
•
f F
♦ wain.. -+Nf.ncV: .�+�� ��2 .
T}��♦�. 1 � ♦
5-}'�S$ y'� i _ } - �ti♦S.... ` f }•, l "� tea..
.•
i i1.A ' .
1 Y `. 'Ji f• '. • .
T lit
t e
r i17
�� tQ __ I C..
it ...
SS �yySry�: 9
a
Sm
' y
—_o
n -t fie_ V k y. v_9Y
Y f
• I ♦' •.y i} a�rr {[_3 �'�"�. �Jl�i . �
!} Jf a.. w= � e. • Ta'Mm4 .C rrah RR� f�m4fA}E{! G .:t
i Y. r u.Y(i� ail ig f
y "�u+b{ 4a_�tiir mw�
$iSm
/wry �l8}
t M'Yh`}Yi >
Y k
L 3 2 f �yl�. �p 3
su5�#Ssry x e,T, ✓f.e. ♦ a YA r�?t+ ' Ms �'fi �s�6' •
��I � F 3rva Mws
Stl aTAtn x N Ye
r. _ _ W4b�.r `� a 4 L
M1
_ J
r^ .5. �.. `. r .R.. n:� J' 4 ..( • homer. � 4. _
,�i,.:wts�crrrsagus�eww �. � � �•
ymry xu� I' L 4'r 1 $ a
E o-
p USE
F^ .Y.FYY j/( TW Y'Tee.TM4t
..
• f
'
Y Y'
S �t
��Y
IV�S�Yii IrvSA�di�� � ly Iby$i�
$i.
l66��
p
(..
I.
-
« *4 �
Li ),I • 1 • �^i R .(yI� ♦ i R
�,y 4
4 (}
iii=j1
Nt.
: : -
� 1
Mw .a
0
j a
L. N u w f' � �—vT v
7 T• 1 a¢
f Yx.
�•..
"C�•t•� 5 _
• f' yyy _ c
• s - •a T * • i •' } Y
w
• �� y '�� ♦ �� IiT' �iky'.!p�Yp♦ +5 I Y.& b_ ..AA�� _ ��{ al•I�] f'
} f 4� C +wM 5 ."R-'� � •. � Yd{fF'•�M4 � � Y' • I .fNl
)f 6 '1Y a.. +v i`! y_a fa _ t .}•aMfP'%1G S uy_
i4 ♦G1 � Yt : Y •
.y�i•Y=. 3Y �. .•A.•al
t •�'..�y °` �'A
.•f a .' 1..x rt'� iK� v[' �i ri \• ♦ �1 �� T`r.+P'w �.. f y 4 +!gpi�� • 'I I `•' � 1Yr . • v�y. �YTs +35Y {
Via- !\F 1� 1[ a'[F T°lr— e �}` • • •R9
.. 4.a f l
Y
I
j ..i
� x
�e a••y _ x w
I F r. +tea ., a va v-^ . 4 1 _
'' . ., .� . �� sae. -1r .
r.
I
ia.4 �..�.. ti• S yy. W ?+�y f r }lr i
jy��•+ ^J c t, a a a e
� s.` _ .:,,yKy y xy • . �R�F ... , -.: x Y. .
" .y]yYMvt �tea . �
� • f
..:4 i n s e ` • r1i .'T'�x�' - : atrn _... lv ti.
��.J IFf
w TTTM f v �. ��" 4\�� Hr�l:.. t �) 1 � Tt
�4' • i l"�. t���R`J)—i�a ui��T 1:1��i
.�x fi`i iC r. . w . •
• T f y l' O [y 1.
r f"ie
•
ttt��S�f} . -wu tit >: e,Y�:}fb. ,ra i"�i'liY. a. r►Kyry�'4 3
f '! +fir #4lA a'aw,�'nT=`LYi. lll1 T��� �•+-x. -{Y i'�ly • �Y -yam, �F
C • 0 x ze..: 4i " y Y'YS v ;'3` f� " si.'>as1` m*t {e :�t{4 afl r+'Sf .r f
Pn ♦ Jn
''.♦ .t wax, r.l-:��`x≥t a' '� f.'..� ra .k +� .a•�}v+ y. tx ♦ i ) #'
rf a �� n\ � i'{rtr �1 •1 X➢ � rI .� i V •]N I�xn. xf 4:
-•-- 21 i r • ? ♦
w�. �`f3tn t. *e a. JR�.? r s'�f
" �\ a: x"^S'F y`- w�i • " +" i ri '!i 1 .. �'
r— a t eia s
�.� .'ll�.=.. Y� CrtwM tC 2.'2'1`Na H'i Y y • Y akF t. - . IL i'YYl i _ yy
R.`. n v h .Y 4Ra.. _A �.. zne `-.times i" • '�xy •�3ly u'a •r
ii`•' )'t' -+v �• •xr. e Y sr''.,1'�•_ -•. ar, L': i.Yu f°.._vi'A +�ilK:. ♦'r �}F''}.
.r+ 4--- _ _ ) '^ e F \ Aa`fl i ;. 1 ♦r
rr ✓ M � _
rw
:111!
•62
S• ■A 'IA
w ow,
4'-' 'win r.nxq
Vgojo GOp
PvollalJ�W
ofoloW
WNIY'STLZ l.y Q.IYV'JS
SAV 1
B'
p
.
�
p
I
gp5
Eiie
as
w
Q
M
V
��
p,y a.e �
1
'
+ply *:`� le r
'1 LLF
r_ I
f._
t" W'w IZ:9ZSMMi/9t/S'5'0"M.l!S30 SAIon H ml\mlV r
I
•
•
s at. rev\r . - • - • - a. • • - -
___ _ r — -. . . - is{illililll--11111--I---' —"' S •IIIIUIIIIIUIIU I r• -fie • rr' -In
E _
• FFFF L�I v ..�•
as
I 1
_ _____ ai.. iitii H
�� AT
r i " J■.,
aa.
e . 4
i6 •Y
Pf y� {
4= It ,,,�. -Q\iii► �■
:�' _filPle
�®i,'IIaBI®
•
w — me 1!'
C
ADI� W2a
w5cr egvatka3
LW- L. cw )
MII vV 4w. ks6.FrQr
i D AY'
TEVILLE, ARKANSAS
GRANITE OR E1FS ON I I!1' FOAM W/
REVEAL • 10"
'I
rt ...y tLsyr.
♦ 1
' IY
`
1
II----'_---- _..._ Vi'
n
tai .
rt' 1 6 ti
t
a,
L
j.
•
0
•
79
BAR b `-,RiL�
rill? ft nnnt�!+1�1M1.
•
•'.z r
r.
I
-x -
0
o
s r •
St RDAPH0USEI
r
S
•
SY'L \•
R �. •' f r•
C
r.
n
LJ
Pam
_______
ITALIAN
ITALIAN RESTAURANT
�jS �tJPr
C
r
Ll
Ciwd'e 4
•
•
•
I
rla N ! - _s_,_..
A[ T"
1+ T }
C ITALIAN RESTAURANT
xM
•
• 1
I
• I
tit
.a
.. L'
tRt.q gam'~
Y�
ru^s.Y.S.te4'lF�3F
in-
FuDDROcKERS
. � YMy[ _ TT'T" '• s ..
%fl
y xf. f: r'• r } r
e I u .,. 1 (g v
4 C . n .x
l • Y.� r
eY [� tl r iyi
i ' .x rc } I �le ;,. >7 v i h �: v ,;,-
v1Nn . ,-: rtr. a ,•
JUN'! 2005
i
n
9
I•
L
...yam r.- .
l I�_� A! s i... l�•wf �.7 Tr. _. .. .
may• f fir.
.e E.. P .a '_ - r.
�Afl. I .ra .1....- T•..l ai
r.
R���rrr�.]ir Y'•.:J� Ewa
.f.a ref. a-- .
.��—S.! -- fir+ —a
-S____ r. .—r alaa
" YI.rT. .] I.
F
p i
.. 1.M
w —
r a -
Vy—.
•
}
ae"ttevi1e PC Meeting of May 23, 2005
• ARKANSAS
•
•
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator
Date: May 18, 2005
ITEM #: LSD 05-1468 (TGI Friday's)
Applicable Requirements:
Off Street Parking _.
✓ Commercial Design Standards
Buffers and Screening-__
✓ 1_540 Desig i Overlay
Plan Checklist:
✓submitted by applicant
Xrequested
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
Preliminary
Final
Submittal
Submittal
Off -Street Parking and Loading
✓
wheel stops /curbs
irrigation
✓
✓
edged landscape beds indicated
✓
species of plant material identified
✓
size of plant material at time of installation indicated
✓ interior landscaping
narrow tree lawn (8'min. width, 17min. length /1 tree per l5 spaces)
tree island 10' min. width / I tree per 12 spaces)
X perimeter landscaping
side and rear property lines (5' landscaped)
adjacent to street RO. W (15' greenspace exclusive for landscaping/1
street tree every 30 L.F., a continuous planting ofshrubs and ground
cover - 50% evergreen)
✓
soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed
/
mulching notes indicate mulching around trees and within landscape beds.
✓
planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual
K: VeremytLandscape AdminLPROJEC7SU SD-200SVGL FridnystLandstnpeReviewForm - PC. doc
0
Preliminary
Submittal
Final
Submittal
Commercial Design Standards
./
greenspace adjacent to street RO.W.(15' wide)
street trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W.
outdoor storage screened with landscaping
/
Buffer Strips and Screening
landscaped area (12' miu.)
fence required
outdoor storage screened with landscaping
non-residential landscape screen when adjacent to residential zones
landscape requirement for setback reduction
Overlay District Requirements
/
greenspace adjacent to street R.O.W. (25' wide)
/
street trees planted every 30'L.F. along R.O.W.
/
25% of total site area left in greenspace (80% landscaped)
/
parking lots and outdoor storage screened with landscaping
Recommendation: Approval of the landscape plan associated with LSD 05-1486.
I
•
•
K: UeremylLandsaape AdmintPROJECIW_SD-20051TG1 FridayslLandscnpeReviewForm - PC.doc
CUP05-1494
One Mile View
r �
TGI FRIDAY'S
s LA
a � 4 R-0
v £ RA
SM1 ST -i C-2 'o
C-?.
RSF4
% n a D
N1vArE o. \
RM1O-12 1 -1
rig 3
m
O P \a O
k0- G1 uai
v IiiI RR/VATEDIt .p
G2 ozf4�'liO-:'11'1 �51.
Ni ClPLLL DP b r C.1 Qi ` {M
a I
'R 9'
,v(lNryr YD C 1 GZ C4
nR
l m 4YE�y`Y•liw'��
/ Hour
SUBJECT PROPERTY
C
D� 1 .rr1
R-0' �-
CZ R-0 u D4
cit
c, ,
_ RPID Y
R -A
RSF4 HO
a•
RM'-24 RAF -24
RA
'4
RAF -24
In
R-0
of
VANi ns�u'/ R
A ME DR U [.iN S N RO -0 u
41
...DODER 1F
u G2 4F� fG2 -1 ti 4?� s aP1.iP�i ._. .fy 6� I C2 r O H:.„ .. Go Rd ♦ HA 1
If HO R �g \ C-2
RI R,F
c_ RSF i -. Rfa
�GIEPo Sr 2bICLi Ob
,I 4 �z5F 4 RC) RSF-4".F
N\ [t fl0� RD RI -12 RSfJ / $_ _ _
.,yam v .- RO 1 / RSFA 'RSF-4 PY RO, RSF4 I RSF-0 �, R 1tSF.
R -O RMF24 4
RO RAT. RSFJ
- RMF 2d o-2 4 Rsr -4
��APP, Eev RD ___ -24
_ ItV 0.f) _ O T 13 RRSFJ RSFJ RA
R A H&24
w I SF.4 v I C 2 RAJ RSF 1 _ I i
RA I RMF 24 „'!'2/y, ', r
�,p Q RfF-24 .. 1-I C Ifl-0 RAR84 A- 4 .RMAN Sf I
R&F.24 1 AEBT-- R-0. v. ,q
12 Rd 1 � — ♦ii .R. — �- 0' RSFJ \ - �..r
—
RSFJ I
C
RI -12 RA � � � �.-� � � {..
Vy. R$Fd
24 RMF. R& -24 )y RSN RSF
RAK +R
A 24 RMF-24 gSFd RSFa
[.}y� RSF-,
f1-24 LLB, y G2 SEA RSFJ
w�a�i� _ F
2�: __ RAF -N r'-2 A HSFd RD
RsfA
RSF
AY 24 RMF 14 '' - RSFA IRSF H RhF 24' RMF-24 FI4 24 R 1 _ RSrJ RT.11
4EgDE i. y RO
MEADE MEADE - RMF24 C21 .Plp F2• ". M13(T, .lpl -y
4'd RM 14 RAF.24 A O RSF RSFJ RSF_ r "
Overview Legend Boundary Master Street Plan
r
Subject Property �—♦i Plarinirg Area Master Street Plan
-
1qflf CUP05-1494 00000 = Freeway/Expressway
Overlay District --- PrRxR 1 Arterial
_ - Outside City ® Mno Merial
Cdledor
•��� Historic Cdlegor
0 0.1250.25 0.5 0.75 1
c30
cm
EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COST
SHARE OF EARLY CONSTRUCTION OF VAN ASCHE
BOULEVARD
This Agreement is entered into on this/'day of May, 2006, between the City of
Fayetteville and NANCHAR, Inc. and MSB PROPERTIES, LLC (hereinafter as CMN
Properties).
Whereas the parties hereto entered into the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR COST SHARE OF EARLY CONSTRUCTION OF VAN ASCHE BOULEVARD
("the Agreement") on February 15, 2005 for the purposes and consideration described
therein; and
Whereas, the Agreement provides that it will be terminated, null and void if
either party has not agreed to the Construction Contract for Van Asche Boulevard by
May 1, 2006; and
Whereas, due to the fact that the engineering plans are not yet received in
acceptable form by the City and bids have not yet been let or accepted, the parties have
not been able to agree to a Construction Contract as of this date; and
Whereas, it is expected that the parties will be able to accomplish the conditions
of the Agreement by no later than August 15, 2006;
Therefore, for the reasons herein stated, the parties hereby agree as follows:
I. The date stated in paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which is May 1,
2006, is extended to August 15, 2006.
2. The Agreement is assignable by CMN PROPERTIES in the event that
the entirety of Phase III is sold to a buyer, and the buyer is entitled to
exercise the rights of CMN PROPERTIES hereunder as specifically
relates to paragraph 2. thereof, and all other rights, as well as is
obligated to perform the obligations of CMN PROPERTIES
thereunder. Phase III is currently under contract to be sold in its
entirety.
3. CMN PROPERTIES agrees to continue to be secondarily liable for
the obligations hereunder in the event that the Agreement is assigned
and the Assignee fails to do so in a timely fashion.
4. The Agreement is made binding on the heirs, successors and assigns
of CMN Properties.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
C
.,
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have set their hands on the date first above
written.
CITY
By:
Attest:
In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby confirmed.
NANCHAR, INC.
Nanc Rub ck, President
Charlotte Steele, Secretary
�.�`�01111 /T 1111 MSB PROPERTIES, LLC
•'G\TY p/•,600 $• �/,/
• ;�; By: yutli(�t
• - Mar rie S. Brooks, ember
FAYEfTEVILLE; A i
Page 2 of 2 Pages
MAY -01-2006 M0N 04:07 PM FAX NO. • P. 01
HARRINGTON, MILLER, NEIHOUSE & KIEKLAK, P.A.
ATTORNEYS
MICHRIF A. HARRINCTON, P.A.
SrIPHEN I. MILLER P.A.
JOHN P. NEIHOUSE, P.A.
(LL.M. IN TAXATION)
THOMAS N. XIEKIAX, P.A.
TO:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE:
113 E. Emma Avenue P.O. Box 687 R. JUSTIN EICHMANN
Springdaie, Arkansas 72765-0687 J. GREG BROWN
Telephone (479) 751-6464
Fax (479) 751-3715 OF CoubmL:
wwwarkensaslaw.com STEPHEN D. snfr
CONFIDENTIAL
TELECOPIER COVER LETTER
Kit Williams, Fayetteville City Attorney
575-8315
Micki Harrington
May 1, 2006
RE: Extension of Supplemental Agreement for
Cost Share of Early Construction of Van Asche Boulevard
Number of pages (including cover sheet): 5L_
This facsimile transmission contains information that is intended only for the recipient named and may be confidential and
subject to the atfomeyclient pPon7ege. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering this
communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this facsimile in error, and that any
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is slridy prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (479) 751.6464.
4f-- Na"
G?o ife-T- k`e
ROGERS OFFICE
5507 Walsh Lane, Suite 102 Rogers, Arkanaa. 7275&8941
Telephone (479) 2716644 Fax (479) 271-7247
MAY -01-2006 M0N 04:07 PM
FAX NO,
P. 02
EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COST
SHARE OF EARLY CONSTRUCTION OF VAN ASCHE
BOULEVARD
This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of May, 2006, between the City of
Fayetteville and NANCHAR, Inc. and MSB PROPERTIES, LLC (hereinafter as CMN
Properties).
Whereas the parties hereto entered into the SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR COST SHARE OF EARLY CONSTRUCTION OF VAN ASCHE BOULEVARD
("the Agreement") on February 15, 2005 for the purposes and consideration described
therein; and
Whereas, the Agreement provides that it will be terminated, null and void if
either party has not agreed to the Construction Contract for Van Asche Boulevard by
May 1, 2006; and
Whereas, due to the fact that
the engineering
plans are not yet
received in
acceptable form by the City and bids have not yet been
let or accepted, the
parties have
not been able to agree to a Construction
Contract as of this date; and
Whereas, it is expected that the parties will be able to accomplish the conditions
of the Agreement by no later than August 15, 2006;
Therefore, for the reasons herein stated, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The date stated in paragraph 8 of the Agreement, which is May 1,
2006, is extended to August 15, 2006.
2. The Agreement is assignable by CMN PROPERTIES in the event that
the entirety of Phase III is sold to a buyer, and the buyer is entitled to
exercise the rights of CMN PROPERTIES hereunder as specifically
relates to paragraph 2. thereof, and all other rights, as well as is
obligated to perform the obligations of CMN PROPERTIES
thereunder. Phase 111 is currently under contract to be sold in its
entirety.
3. The Agreement is made binding on the heirs, successors and assigns
of CMN Properties.
In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby confirmed.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
MAY -01-2006 M0N 04:08 PM FAX NO. • P. 03
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have set their hands on the date first above
written.
CITY OF FA' i x EVILLE NANCHAR, INC.
By:
D n oody; ayor Nancy Rubeck, President
Attest: By: CdGied
City Clerk Charlotte Steele, Secre
MSB PROPERTIES, LLC
By: 'u�` iii
Mar' rie S. Brooks, Member
Page 2 of 2 Pages