Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on August 14, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-44.00: Lot Split (Brian Reindl, pp 484) Approved Page 2 LSP 03-47.00: Lot Split (Edens, pp 366) Approved Page 5 LSD 03-20.00: Large Scale Development (Crossroads Mini Storage, pp 566) Page 7 Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Craig Camagey Rebecca Ohman Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-44.00: Lot Split (Brian Reindl, pp 484) was submitted by Laura Kelly of Robert Sharp, Architects on behalf of Brian Reindl for property located at 580 W. Meadow Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.05 acres. The request is to divide the Parent Tract of 2.05 acres into two tracts of 1.02 and 1.03 acres. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, August 14th meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have originally scheduled four items on the agenda. One item has been pulled from the agenda. That is the Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge in the vicinity of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road and Crossover Road. If you are here for the Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge on Crossover Road we will not be hearing that item this morning, which will leave us three items on the agenda. The first item on our agenda is an item of old business, it is LSP 03-44.00 for Brian Reindl submitted by Laura Kelley of Robert Sharp Architects for property located at 580 W. Meadow Street. Jeremy, can you give us the report please Sir? Pate: Yes Sir. This property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.05 acres. The request is to divide that parent tract of 2.05 acres into two tracts of 1.02 and 1.03 acres. Currently a one story metal and brick building exists on a 1.02 acre tract and a two story brick stucco block and frame building exists on the 1.03 acre tract. The property is surrounded by C-3, Central Commercial, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial zoning. Across Meadow Street is also zoned R -O, Residential Office. Surrounding land use includes the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad, the Nadine Baum Center, the public parking lot to the north and an automobile repair shop to the south. Numerous water and sewer lines are present on and adjacent to the site. Any proposed development shall connect to public water and sewer service and all easements for said public service lines need to be indicated on the plat. Meadow Street in this location is considered a local street. That requires 25' from centerline right of way dedication. The plat does need to be revised to reflect this right of way dedication. A couple of streets, Spring Street to the north has been vacated in this location. Also, Gregg Street, which you see on your plat runs through the existing structure, that has also been vacated and these vacations need to be referenced properly on the plat. Staff is recommending that the Lot Split be approved at the Subdivision Committee level with six conditions. I will go over those for you. Meadow Street right-of-way dedication in the amount of 25 feet from centerline shall be indicated and dedicated on the plat. 2) Label on the plat the vacation document number for that portion of Gregg Street between Meadow and Spring Streets. (Ord.# 1070, Book 465, Page 275). 3) Revise the Right -of -Way vacation reference for Spring Street to the correct (Ord. #1513, Book 689, Page 242). 4) No portion of any structure shall be built over any public utility easement. 5) All public utilities (water, sewer) shall be indicated on the plat. A 20 -foot easement, ten feet Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 3 Bunch: Casey: on each side of the utility line, shall be granted on the plat, excluding those portions which are currently located under the existing building. Item six is a standard condition of approval. Additional staff reports? Matt, are there any Engineering concerns on this like creation of private sewer lines or private utility lines? There are public utility lines and they currently run under the building in some locations. As Jeremy stated, one of the conditions that we are recommending for approval is that the easements be dedicated excluding the portion of the building. I guess we have run into this with some older structures that didn't have the standards that we do now that allow the buildings to get built on top of these lines. We are going to try to get the easements for the area located outside. Bunch: The conditions of approval as stated can rectify this? Casey: Yes. Bunch: We don't need any additional conditions? Casey: I don't think that we can get an easement through the building. I don't know if that would be possible or not so we are just recommending outside of the building to get the easements. Bunch: I guess there are no landscaping or parks considerations on this? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Thank you. Laura, would you come forward please and introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Kelly: I am Laura Kelly, I work at Robert Sharp Architects. Our office has been helping Brian Reindl work on renovation of his property down there for over a year and several different retail and restaurant style businesses are moving in and I am excited about the direction of it. To continue the renovation Brian Reindl would like to bank on the part that he has completed, divide this into two separate lots so that he can use the completed building or the more or less completed building to be used as collateral and continue renovation work in the area. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Church: I guess I don't see any major issues with this and I will go ahead and make a motion to approve LSP 03-44.00. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 4 Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Osmer: 1 do have one question. What is the status of this abandoned railroad? Kelley: Brian purchased it a year or two ago and is very much in love with it. Ostner: Is it going to be able to be a part of this? Kelley: I don't know. Bunch: Thank you Laura. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 5 LSP 03-47.00: Lot Split (Edens, pp 366) was submitted by Mrs. Calvin Edens for property located on the southeast corner of Leverett Avenue and Sycamore Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 3.64 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.01 and 2.63 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 03-47.00 submitted by Mrs. Calvin Edens for property located on the southeast corner of Leverett and Sycamore Street. Jeremy, do you have the staff report? Pate: Yes Sir. This property is zoned RMF -24, which is Residential Multi- family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 3.64 acres. The applicant is requesting to split the property into two tracts of 1.01 and 2.63 acres respectively. Currently a multi -family apartment complex exists on the proposed tract B and the split tract, tract A is vacant at this time. A number of different zonings and uses exist around this site including RMF -24, RMF -40 and C-1 to the north, RMF -24 to the south. RMF -40 to the east and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to the west, which is the Mayes auto repair shop. Water exists along Sycamore Street at this time and public sewer serves both lots along Leverett Avenue and there is a public sewer line along the rear of the tract A lot. Right of way being dedicated is along Sycamore Street and Leverett Avenue. Both require 35' from centerline right of way dedication as they are both collector streets. Staff is recommending that the lot split be approved at the Subdivision Committee level with seven conditions. Leverett Avenue and Sycamore Street right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35 feet from centerline shall be dedicated on the plat. 2) The plat shall be revised to reflect the correct zoning designations as indicated on the adopted Zoning Map in the City of Fayetteville Planning Division. That condition addresses changing R-1 and R-2 to the correct zoning designations that we have now. 3) No part of any new building, building addition, or parking lot expansion may be permitted within the regulatory floodway. 4) Any development, grading, or construction within the floodplain will require a formal "Floodplain Development Permit," in addition to the Grading Permit. 5) Finish floor elevation of any proposed building shall be two feet above the regulatory Base Flood Elevation. 6) All FEMA requirements and the City of Fayetteville Flood Damage Protection Ordinance must be met prior to building permit for the proposed lots. This includes all lots having 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside of the floodplain which may require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) approved by FEMA. The LOMR-F will need to be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Item seven is a standard condition. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Engineering, are there any additional conditions? Casey: I think our conditions of approval that Jeremy read covers all the issues that I have. The site is partially covered by the 100 -year floodplain and Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 6 we have added the conditions that the grading and drainage permit and the floodplain development permit would be required for any proposed construction within this proposed lot. Bunch: Thank you. Parks? Ohmer: There will be a parks fee of $393 for the additional multi -family lot created, which is due before the issuance of a building permit for that new lot. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Warrick: I have a question. This $393, would that be per unit based on what is proposed to be developed? Ohmer: It is actually for only one lot and then once development comes through it will be revised based upon the number of units. Bunch: Could you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Edens: I am Mrs. Calvin Edens. I want it split because I want to sale it. I want to get it eventually zoned for business. Mayes garage is right across the street from there. Bunch: At this point you are wanting to split the lot off and any rezoning considerations would be later? Edens: Yes. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions and motions. Ostner: Here again, I don't see anything that appears out of order. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-47.00. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur Thank you Mrs. Edens and good luck. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 7 LSD 03-20.00: Large Scale Development (Crossroads Mini Storage, pp 566) was submitted by Greg Webb of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of Greg & Letecia Yarbrough for property located at 2469 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.47 acres. The request is for a mini -storage facility with 195 storage units and 26,000 sq.ft. total (600 sq.ft. office, 25,400 sq.ft. storage) proposed. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSD 03-20.00, it is a Large Scale Development for Crossroads Mini Storage submitted by Greg Webb of Freeland, Hauffman and Fredeen for property located at 2469 E. Huntsville Road. Jeremy, is this yours also? Pate: Yes Sir. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.37 acres. The request is to construct a mini - storage facility with 195 storage units, approximately 25,400 sq.ft. and 600 sq.ft. of office space to serve the storage units. The proposal for mini - storage units, which falls under Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesale in a C-2 zoning district requires a Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. The Conditional Use would be heard concurrently with the Large Scale Development proposal before the Planning Commission if the Subdivision Committee chooses to forward this. Surrounding zoning includes RSF-4, Residential Single-family four units per acre to the north and to the west. Residential Agricultural to the south and the west and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial to the east, which is the family practice building. Dedication of right of way required is 55' from centerline along Huntsville Road, which is State Hwy. 16. That will have to be made by Warranty Deed to the state. Street improvements include a 4' sidewalk constructed through the driveway. State highway improvements were recently made in this area and existing highway and sidewalks are in good condition. Existing tree canopy on the site is 10.6%, proposed preservation is 7.4%. Therefore, mitigation is required in the amount of 10 trees planted on site and that is what the applicant is proposing. There is a letter in your packets addressing this project, which before Planning Commission will need to be updated from Tech Plat to Subdivision. It has changed in the specific numbers of units based on site design changes. It does very thoroughly address this project. The recommendation at this time by staff is to forward this project to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. I will go through those for you. 1) Planning Commission approval of a conditional use to allow for Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesale in a C-2 zoning district. 2) Fifty-five feet from centerline for right-of-way shall be dedicated along Huntsville Road by warranty deed. 3) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The applicant has submitted color elevations of all four sides of the structures, along with proposed signage and fence screening. Staff has reviewed the elevations with the applicant, along with required screening from adjacent residential properties, and is in favor of the Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 8 proposals. We do have full elevations and a materials board as well. 4) Proposed signage shall comply with Commercial Design Standards. 5) The applicant shall indicate the fence screen on along the west side of the property on the elevations prior to Planning Commission. 6) All existing electric lines 12kv and below shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be underground. 7) All mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened. All roof -mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. 8) Any work within the highway right-of-way shall be permitted by AHTD. 9) Any development, grading, or construction within the floodplain will require a formal "Floodplain Development Permit," in addition to the Grading Permit. 10) The existing sidewalk along Huntsville Road shall remain. The developer shall construct the sidewalk through the proposed drive in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance §171. 11) A continuous planting of shrubs along the parking lot facing the right-of-way shall be required. 12) The owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the detention pond and associated drainage ways. The detention pond shall be sodded. Include a note to this effect on the site plan. Items 13-16 are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there additional staff reports? Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Landscaping? Carnagey: Just that they are required ten mitigation trees on site and I would like for them to show on their landscape plan the continuous row of shrubs that are required along the frontage of Huntsville. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: I briefly discussed during our Plat Review meeting with the applicant the availability of sanitary sewer. Their plan was to reuse an existing tap that is serving the structure that is there now. I just want to reiterate to the applicant that they need to get with the Water and Sewer Division to verify the condition of that tap and make sure that it can be reused. If not, a sewer main will need to be extended to the property. Currently it goes under Huntsville Road and we will not allow a new tap to be made across Huntsville. It will have to be a main extension. Bunch: Webb: Thanks Matt. Is the applicant present? If you would please come up and have a seat and introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Good morning, I am Greg Webb and I have Letecia Yarbrough, the owner with me. The project that is proposed is a mini -storage facility. We tried Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 9 to design the project in a way that would have minimal impact on adjacent properties. We designed all of the drives to be interior drives with the lighting mounted on building walls along those interior drives so that the buildings actually act as a screen to protect adjacent properties from glare and light spill over. We have worked with staff to comply with all of the requirements and we would appreciate an approval. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments or questions. One of the things that may become an issue, and this will have to go to the full Planning Commission, that is going to be commercial design standards and unarticulated walls. I don't know about the visibility of the east wall from Hwy. 16 across that parking lot but that may become an issue. Do you have any? Jeremy, can you hold that up so we can see that? I know we have two different drawings. Pate: This is a revised one from the first one that I think you have. Bunch: That shows the doors. That is the climate controlled building that would be facing the east? Webb: Yes. Warrick: It is not shown on this drawing but they do propose a screening fence along this boundary between this property and the adjacent Residential - Agricultural property. Bunch: On the east side you are using no fence or using the building as part of the security system since there are no penetrations on that side of the building? Webb: Exactly. Bunch: What do you propose for screening on the east side because there is a big gap in here on your landscaping and trees? You have some articulation on the front part but it is hard to tell how much expanse the Planning Commissioners will consider as a non -articulated surface. Warrick: There is one mitigating factor on the east side in that we are looking at a commercial property adjacent to a commercial property and there is not a specific screening requirement between those uses because they are similar. On the west side there is a specific requirement under the ordinance to screen between commercial and non-commercial properties such as this. The other direction it is not quite as critical. The issue of unarticulated wall surface is something that can be addressed under commercial design standards. It is an interior side. I think it is most Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 10 appropriate to address that area that can be seen from the public right of way as opposed to just the view from the parking area of the adjacent development. Some additional landscaping may help to mitigate some of that and the Commission may wish to see some additional treatment to the structure toward the front, which is the north. Bunch: Can you take the material board and show us using this drawing that Dawn is holding up what materials and how they play into the treatments that you have designed for? Webb: Yes, we are showing a brick wainscot across the front of all four buildings and then also down the first third of the east building. That really is the area when we visited the site that we determined would be visible from the street right of way. After that it is not really shown on the plans but there is some undergrowth underneath an existing electric line that screens a significant portion of the rear of the building. We are using for a majority of the buildings down the sides we are going to be using a metal siding. The fronts of the buildings we will use a hardy plank siding, which is kind of a cement fiber board. It will have a lapped siding look. Those areas along the fronts of the building that are visible from the right of way will not have a metal siding. The office building will have a parapet that extends 5' over the sidewalks so there will be some articulation there as well. A little bit of shadow that will call attention to that main building. The overhead doors will be an emerald green and then a trim will be a darker taupe to create some emphasis and again, a little bit of color articulation on the building. We are going to use the same brick for the brick pilasters with an ornamental metal fence to tie the whole project together and provide security and aesthetic appeal. In the rear of the property we will be converting that fence to a chain link fence. Are three any questions? Bunch: That pretty well describes it. I just wanted to make sure that we have everything present for when it goes to the full Planning Commission because these are the types of questions that will be asked at that time like metal siding and the various treatments on the visible portions of it. You mentioned an overhead electric line, your drawings indicate that that will be removed. Webb: Yes, removed or abandoned. It actually comes back and goes to an existing shop building to be removed. Yarbrough: The portion that goes from the property line to the shop building will be removed. Bunch: The overhead part that comes along this way will remain? Yarbrough: That is an easement for the electric company. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 11 Bunch: I was kind of wondering because you are showing the removal of a line and leaving an easement there so the question was was it going to be buried or leaving the overhead. Warrick: Do you know what size line is in that location? Yarbrough: I am not sure. We can find out from the electric company. Warrick: If it is over 12KV then our ordinance permits it to remain overhead. If it is just a service line, which is typically 12KV or less then the requirement under the ordinance is to remove it and place it underground. If it is transmitting power to the adjacent properties it will likely be larger than that but you do need to contact the utility and find out. Ostner: I have a question about the front and along the street are these overhead electric lines? Webb: Yes they are and they are quite large transmission lines and the electric company did confirm that those are over 12KV. Osmer: I am wondering about planting trees. Webb: That is a concern. We didn't have much room up there to work so an option may be to go with a oak tree rather than a large tree. Carnagey: They can group. There is an allowance for groupings of trees if that in fact does need to be moved back a little bit. It may be a wise choice to move a grouping down a little bit to the south on that northeast corner and that way it will help with the screening problem we were just talking about earlier. Osmer: It is just something that concerns me because there is a terrific mini - storage project just off Gregg between Ridout and Meeks and they planted these beautiful trees right under a line and they are going to have to either be topped out or removed when they mature and it seems pointless. Webb: So basically an option might be to wrap those trees around along the northern portion of the east property line to help screen the climate controlled building. Carnagey: At least one of them yes. On that corner possibly two. Ostner: The only other thing that I see that I think we will talk about at the full Commission is the large unarticulated wall surface. Bunch: Is that an 8' eave height? You are showing 9 72'. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 12 Webb: 8'6" I believe and a 9' pitch. Bunch: It wouldn't take much in the way of shrubs down that east side with the angles and everything to really break that up and screen it. Yarbrough: May I say something? Bunch: Sure. Yarbrough: One thing about this site is that it is narrow on the front and very deep. It is pretty tough to see the back of the property because it is so deep. There is also a big difference in elevation between the commercial property to the east and so that difference in elevation also seems to make a difference. There are existing old trees on the property line and so it is not quite as bare as it looks on the elevations. Bunch: Right. Basically from here and then you have maybe about this far back you have the articulation so we are looking at an area right in here, a short area that might be addressed. Also with that low eave height and as you stated, with the elevations, it is questionable how much of the building is actually going to be visible. If it were a 20' eave height we would be talking a whole different ball game. Yarbrough: As you are looking up, you're right. Webb: There is a ridge that runs right through here. Bunch: It seems to get taller as you get back through here and then you get into the trees and it drops off down into a river valley. Carnagey: Commissioner Bunch, may I add a comment? Bunch: Yes. Carnagey: They are required to plant 12 mitigation trees and because of the space constraint in the rear they are planning on planting large native trees. I have allowed them to take a 20% reduction, so minus two trees per the ordinance, the mitigation incentive in the ordinance. In order to alleviate some of the problems on that eastern flank maybe we should add those two mitigation trees back and that would actually help screen that eastern side a little bit more. Bunch: We have a certain amount of time for that to be considered between now and the full Planning Commission. You can work together on it to come up with something. I think that just trying to save you some time on your project where these are the types of questions that the Planning Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 13 Commission will be concerned with and our job here is to foresee those and to give you the opportunity to take care of it in a timely manner Yarbrough: We appreciate that. Bunch: This area where this retaining wall is, you are not showing any fencing on this drawing and then it is not clear on the others. I was just looking at it from a security standpoint that this appears to be a gap in your fencing scheme or that just an omission from the drawing? Webb: It actually ties into the front corner of building B and comes out and there is an automatic gate at this location that ties in. We have a little bit of stacking room here for people wanting to enter the facility before the gate comes up so that is why the gate did not extend up to the front of the building. Bunch: Then that leaves this area here open because you are showing the fence coming all the way up to here, which I assume is for screening purposes. Webb: Correct, then the chain link fence connects back up to the rear corner of this building and wraps around. Again, similar to this situation this building acts as a security barrier as well because it does not have any penetrations on the west facade. Bunch: On the air conditioner on the south end of the climate control building, the east building, I guess that is building A, is there any requirement for screening on that? Warrick: All utilities are supposed to be screened. It falls under commercial design standards and of course the primary reason that we have commercial design standards is visibility from a public right of way. I think in this situation if we have some landscaping adjacent to the building in that location, I don't recall whether or not that row of trees extends that far back. That could mitigate that situation. A small wooden fence extending from the edge of the building a couple of feet would also satisfy that requirement. Webb: Our interpretation of that was that the building acted as a screen from public right of way and therefore, we didn't need screening. Warrick: One of the unique factors with this particular project is that in addition to commercial design standards being applicable because it is a commercial project, it is a Conditional Use and so compatibility and incorporating this project into the fabric of the neighborhood and the surrounding properties is important as well regardless of the issues of the visibilities in the front. That is the primary area that needs to be addressed. I feel that it is also important to mitigate negative impacts of the project that may be Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 14 extending throughout that we can possibly address to help with blending it into the neighborhood as it addresses the project to the east. I think a small screening wall of some type would be appropriate or a shrub. One shrub is going to hide a small air conditioner unit that could be visible from that adjacent property. Yarbrough: Would you show me again the area that you are talking about? Bunch: This air condition right there. A question for staff, on our Master Trails Plan, is there anything scheduled for down in the west fork of the White River valley? I know that there is a public easement to the south of this sewer easement but are there any plans for anything to where the public could view the building from the south? Ohman: There is actually a trail corridor planned along the west fork of the White River. Land has not been acquired along the west fork however so as to which side of the river that will fall on so viewing potential is always there but it has not been planned as of yet. Bunch: The other thing that would possibly work for screening on the south side is the detention pond itself. It will probably stick up a lot higher than the air condition. Warrick: The detention pond is also located in a floodplain area. The property does begin to slope at the rear so you are looking at it starting to slope downward toward the fork of the river. Pate: There are numerous mitigation trees in this area as well. Warrick: They are proposing to use some of their mitigation trees around the detention pond which is nice because a lot of times you see those detention ponds kind of out there with nothing and nothing around them so they kind of do stick out as a very unnatural feature. Bunch: Warrick: Yarbrough: Bunch: Possibly placement of the mitigation trees could be considered screening? Some of those I believe are located at the rear of the property. Also, a lot of the existing canopy is at the south end. It is pretty thick. This part right here is definitely going to screen it from any views this way and then from the south if the mitigation trees are in there. I just wanted to address this issue so that it is not mentioned that it is screened. If we take care of it now then it won't be a point of contention later. If the placement of the mitigation trees in conjunction with these other existing trees, if you feel that screens it adequately then just say so as part of your presentation. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 15 Pate: Pursuant to Matt's question earlier, I was wondering if the applicant has addressed if they have explored the condition of that water and sewer tap. Webb: I have not at this point but it is on my to do list. Warrick: I have a question of the Committee. This has been a challenging project and staff is more comfortable with this project in this location. It is a Conditional Use. I guess I would be looking for any comments that you three have with regard to appropriateness and any other types of conditions or questions that would be raised with regard to this project in this location because of the nature of it needing a Conditional Use approval. As I said, staff is comfortable with this. We feel that this is an appropriate location for a mini -storage. The letter that Ms. Yarbrough has included in your packet I think is very appropriate and it is difficult to locate a mini -storage in the City of Fayetteville because of the way that our zoning is established and we specifically look at mini -storage units as a separate use unit and with specific screening requirements and they are really limited to industrial areas, which are not necessarily accessible to people who need this type of service. Like I said, I am comfortable with the location. I think that this applicant has done quite a bit to try to incorporate the project into the area but I am looking for any trouble shooting that this committee might be able to provide for staff, as well as the applicant, because this is something that is a Conditional Use and that causes a lot of need for additional review and questions through the full process. Church: Has there been any opposition to the project that you know of? Warrick: Church: Bunch: Staff has not heard from any adjoining property owners or anyone with regard to this. It looks like you made a lot of effort to work with the adjacent property owners which is a good thing. Subject to mini -storage units I think we are seeing because of the restrictions and the Fayetteville scheme of doing things on the limitations of where these things can be sited we are seeing an awful lot of them just outside of the city limits. Yarbrough: 1.5 miles to be exact. Bunch: This is a good location and an accessible location to residential areas and to commercial areas, whoever might use it. I know that the climate control facilities I think are quite limited in this area as to supply of them. I am sure that demand is probably exceeding supply at this time so it is good to see this type of project. With the intended difficulties of placing Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 16 one in Fayetteville this appears to be a good location and obviously, quite a bit of work has gone into make it work. You are to be commended for that. Warrick: This property I would mention is located within a commercial zoning district. It is located within a commercial node on the General Plan so it is not divergent necessarily from our General Plan but it is a Conditional Use. In this type of development you will always have large, unarticulated wall surfaces because of the need for security and the type of structure that has to be included in this type of development so I think that it is challenging to address all of the concerns of the Planning Commission and the city with regard to commercial design standards in this particular type of application. Bunch: Some of the times ornamental fencing can actually be used in lieu of articulated surfaces because as low as this building is, I'm not advocating that you have to do this, but ornamental fencing down here would go a long ways to break that up. That would be an option. It looks like we have between the design as it is and the possible addition of vegetation in this area it looks like we are pretty well covered. Again, I'm going along with what Ms. Warrick said that we are kind of prepping this for the full Planning Commission and trying to point out deficiencies. We are not trying to tear your project up. We are just trying to recognize that it is a difficult process. Webb: I appreciate the options that you have thrown out I think there are some good ones with merit and we are just going to have to kind of weigh those and see how they work. Warrick: I think that whatever you choose to do in playing up screening and/or other types of elements, showing that on your elevations is going to be very important. For instance, there are some screening trees proposed along this boundary but they are not shown on this elevation and there is some existing vegetation too I believe that is not really shown on here. What we are seeing on here is really what we would see if we were standing 2' in front of the wall. While it is an accurate elevation drawing, I think that it is more appropriate to kind of view it from a little further back so that we really see a real live understanding of what that finished project will look like. Webb: So instead of standing on the property line and viewing the building, actually back up on the neighbors property and show that vegetation. Warrick: Sure. I think the screening and any other architectural elements will be very important because that gives a truer picture of what the finished project is going to show. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 17 Bunch: Like if we were stopped at the stop light on Huntsville headed west, that is probably the time that the public will view this the most is while they are sitting at that stop light and there is quite a bit there that is not reflected on your drawings. Committee members, since we have been asked by city staff to help with the process not only for this project but for other projects, are there any additional comments and concerns that we can voice? Ostner: I think the staff has been quite thorough. I don't see anything lacking. The screening along the front, isn't there a shrub line that needs to be put in the drawing? Warrick: Adjacent to the parking area there is a line of shrubs that needs to be shown. Ostner: What exactly is the parking area? Webb: There's not much. Warrick: There are three or four parking spaces right in front. Webb: We are showing a row of shrubs on the landscape plan, is that sufficient? I just want to make sure, if that is sufficient then great, if not I just needed to clarify that. Carnagey: Yes it is for the parking. There is a continuous planting of shrubs required along the frontage of Huntsville that needs to be shown as well. That was my comment earlier. Webb: I wasn't sure. I over looked that in the ordinance. Is there a requirement for the location of that? Can we place it adjacent to the fence or does it need to be on the right of way line? Carnagey: No, we can talk about that. Bunch: We cannot speak for the other six Planning Commissioners but we can at least give you the benefit of our thoughts. It looks like a real good project and a lot of work has gone into it trying to make it applicable to this site. From a business standpoint it is a pretty good location. Yarbrough: It is a great location. It has changed significantly since the first time we presented it and we have worked very hard to make it attractive, something that would fit into the area, something that the neighbors would accept that won't cause a problem. At this point because we have lost quite a bit of area where we could put storage it is becoming a marginal project as far as feasibility. Hopefully the effort that we have put in to this point will satisfy most of the requirements. There are some small things Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 18 Ostner: Yarbrough: Bunch: Yarbrough: Bunch: Yarbrough: Bunch: Ostner: Church: Bunch: Ostner: that we need to do but I am hoping that there won't be anything that causes the cost of the project to rise too much. When you say you can only put buildings on such a limited area, are you talking about the detention pond eating up area? I am a novice. This is my first time through Large Scale Development and when I saw a sewer line at the back I thought that's probably 15'. That has nothing to do with the Planning Commission or anything else. It is just that when it turned out that it takes 50' and that you can't have the detention pond there, you can't disturb the soil, then we lost about 5,000 sq.ft. in mini storage. 5,000 out of 30,000, that significantly affected the cash flow. We do own one other mini -storage and it is a lot of fun. My husband and I bought it, we paid a little too much for it. We did one for fun. This one is very close and would help a lot to take care of the customers that are actually quite irritated when we don't have space available and can't take care of them quickly. At this point we have done just about everything that we can do to try to make it a good project and one that will cash flow. The only reason I mentioned all of that is I didn't know how much ornamental fencing costs, now I do. That is why we didn't say that you would have to do all of that, it is just one of the methods. I certainly understand that can be an area of concern and I appreciate you pointing that out. There are also other things that you can do. Right. We don't want to be in the business of redesigning your project, we are just throwing out some options that have been used by others for you to consider to work in your formula. Ok, I appreciate that. Do we have any other comments about this particular project or the location of mini -storages in general? I think it meets all the criteria. I was going to make a motion that we forward LSD 03-20.00 to the Planning Commission. Do we need to add an additional condition on the row of shrubs on the front of the property? The continuous row of shrubs across the front as described by Craig. In my motion for forwarding I would like to add an additional condition of a continuous row of shrubs as prescribed by our Landscape Administrator. Subdivision Committee August 14, 2003 Page 19 Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur that we will not approve this but forward it to the full Planning Commission. Ostner: Yes, forward it. Bunch: You have time between now and the full Planning Commission so good luck to you. Yarbrough: Thank you. Bunch: Dawn or Jeremy are there any other items or comments to be presented? Warrick: Nothing else. Bunch: Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 9:26 a.m.