Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-01 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 42-01 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WAIVER REDUCING THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO OLD GREGG AVENUE FOR LSD 01-1.00 BY SVVEETSER LTD PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, Old Gregg Avenue is now primarily a service road for storage units or commercial activity; and WHEREAS, the normal right of way dedication is not needed beyond what the Planning Commission approved; and WHEREAS, Sweetser LTD Partnership has agreed to build an approved sidewalk on new Gregg Avenue as recommended by the City Sidewalk Administrator. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves the waiver of right of way dedication for Old Gregg Avneue for LSD 01-1.00 by Sweetser LTD Partnership pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. -vs VE if; 00,1\ 25;irtasf , en PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of March, 2001. ATTEST: By: eather Woodruff, City Clerk APPROVED: By t. NAME OF FILE: Resolution No. 42-01 CROSS REFERENCE: 03/20/01 Resolution 42-01 02/22/01 Memo to Fayetteville Planning Commission Members thru Tim Conklin from Sara Edwards and Ron Petrie regarding LSD 01-1.00:Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp328) 02/26/01 Departmental Memo to Planning Commissioners from Kim J. Hesse regarding LSD 01-1/Gregg Street Storage 02/20/01 Letter to Commissioners from Thomas A. Hennelly, Jorgensen & Associates regarding Gregg Street Storage Large Scale Development 02/26/01 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 25-42) 03/20/01 Staff Rev ew Form 04/09/01 Departmental Memo from City Clerk NOTES: FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 LSD 01-1.00 PC Meeting of 26 Feb 01 Gregg Street Storage, LSD TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner FROM: Sara Edwards, Ron Petrie P.E. DATE: February 22,2001 Project: LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 mini -storage buildings with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in I-1 district. Findings: The applicant is proposing to construct 650-800 storage units This property is located north of Rideout Lumber on old Gregg Avenue. Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards for both the structures and for signage. The Planning Conunission shall determine if any of the structures are Commercial. If it is determined that none of the structures are commercial in nature than §166.14 D shall not apply. However, if it is determined that any of the structures are commercial than the Planning Commission should make a finding regarding compliance. 2. Planning Commission determination of required offsite street improvements to Old Gregg Avenue. Staff recommends that Old Gregg Avenue be widened adjacent to the site to 14' from centerline with curb & gutter as shown on the Large Scale Development. 3. Dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for a total of 25 feet from the centerline of Old Gregg Street to meet the Master Street Plan requirements of a Local Street. The applicant is requesting that no additional right-of-way be required to be dedicated and that the sidewalk be constructed on the east side of Gregg Avenue as recommended by Chuck Rutherford (See attached letter from the applicant). The City Council would have to approve any lesser dedications from the Master Street Plan requirements. Page 1 s'A 1111 LSD 01-1.00 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with a ten foot greenspace. Chuck Rutherford has recommended that this sidewalk be located on the east side of Gregg Avenue instead of adjacent to this development Planning Commission determination of a variance request to allow a 25 foot wide driveway. The request is for a one foot variance from the maximum driveway width limit of 24 feet. Staff is in support of this waiver. The developer has violated the Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance by removing two trees prior to the large scale development. A fine has been assessed per rare tree removed. No additional tree removal will occur on the site. The remaining existing canopy is 8.15%. The applicant is adding trees along the front of the property in order to meet Commercial Site Development Standards in the amount of 3 04%. Thus the total amount of tree canopy provided on site is 11.2%. The requirement in an I-1 zone is 15%. 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $470.00. There will be living quarters provided as part of this development. (1 unit @ $470.00) 8. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 9. 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. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §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. Background: The proposed Large Scale Development was reviewed at the January 31, 2001 Technical Plat review and Page 2 411, the February 15, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting. LSD 01-1.00 Page 3 Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included screening requirements, right-of-way dedication requirements, sidewalk location, and building materials. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Large Scale Development to the full Plantung Commission "subject to all conditions and staff comments." INFRASTRUCTURE: a) Water will be extended to serve this development. b) Sanitary sewer will be extended to serve this development. c) Streets. See Conditions of Approval for street improvement requirements. d) Grading and Drainage. A preliminary grading plan and drainage report has been submitted. A final plan and report will be required prior to beginning construction. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required Approved Denied Date: / / The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. by title date • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO Planning Commissioners FROM: Kim J. Hesse, Landscape Administrator Vt's DATE February 26, 2001 SUBJECT: LSD 01-1 / Greg Street Storage • Based on the timing of events that occurred surrounding the proposed development of the Greg street storage units and based on the condition of the site, I recommend that a fine be assessed for two walnut tree removed from the project site versus requesting that additional replacement trees be planted. I received a phone call from a concerned citizen about the removal of two large Walnut trees from the site of the proposed Greg Street Storage Units. That call was received two days after the trees were removed. Within two weeks of that date, the project was submitted to the city planning department for review It seems obvious to me that the developer had plans for developing the property as it has been currently proposed at the time the trees were removed. The code states in section 162.11, B, la. " When Required - In proposed subdivisions and large scale developments, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission as a portion of the preliminary plat or site plan". Within that same section the code states" There shall be no land disturbance or tree removal until the tree preservation plan has been approved". The development was planned and an engineer hired at the time the tree were removed and there had been no correspondence with the Landscape Administrator's office concerning the development. Based off of the application form that was submitted with the development, 8.15% of the site had existing canopy cover. The two Walnut trees were not figured into that canopy coverage. Based from aerial photos obtained during the year 2000, it appears that the removed trees may have had a canopy coverage of 7500 sq. ft., equaling 2% of the entire site. Based on this information, the site, prior to any tree removal, had an existing canopy coverage of approximately 10%. Our ordinance requires that a developer replace canopy removed to meet what was existing. By fulfilling landscape requirements from other ordinances that regulate this development, 17 Oak trees are to be planted which account for 13,600 square feet of proposed canopy. In the past, the city has always allowed trees planted due to landscape requirements to count for replacement trees. With this in mind, the 17 Oaks proposed will meet the replacement needs. There has been question as to why section 162.11, D would not suffice in this situation. Since a fine has not currently been assessed, the planning commission has the freedom to chose how this should be resolved. Section 162.11 states"If trees have been removed below the minimum percent canopy within five years of application for development approval, the replacement canopy requirement shall be increased by 10% of total canopy". I have always felt that this section pertained to a more subtle disregard or unawareness of the ordinance requirements; a situation where a property owner clears land in preparation for sale. The way the ordinance state the additional 10%, I am unclear if that is 10% of the total site or 10% of the canopy which naturally will impact the number of additional trees requested. Based on the number of additional trees required for replacement purposes, additional space must be created to plant the trees and any trees planted on site must have a water source within 100 feet. I should point out that we do not have a good system of ensuring survivability of any landscaping that is installed. 4. 4} Oz. L' - - - i , ;.-' " --, ..._ 4 ilt. .. r Ar. , A _ LSD01-1 Gregg St. Storage One Mile Radius /V Streets Zoning Districts Lsd01-1.shp Master Street Classifications A/ COLLECTOR ns FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY • at eMINOR ARTERIAL A/ PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL Ae HISTORIC COLLECTOR /\/ Fayetteville City Limits v 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Miles LSD01-41egg St Storage ose Up outside city limits C-2 /V Streets Zoning Districts / Structures (1998) Lsd01-1.shp Master Street Classifications tv 'COLLECTOR FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY es,v,• MINOR ARTERIAL A/ PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL N HISTORIC COLLECTOR iveFayetteville City Limits Floodway Yr100 r A 200 0 200 400 Feet A JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (501) 442-9127 • FAX (501) 582-4807 DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S. THOMAS HENNELLY, P.E. City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Dr. Attn: Planning Commission Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE. Gregg Street Storage Large Scale Development Dear Commissioners, February 20, 2001 The purpose of this letter is to serve as an official request for a waiver, on behalf of our client, Sweetser, LTD. Partnership, of City of Fayetteville Ordinance 166.05, Section C, Paragraph -6, which requires the dedication of right-of-way along a City Street for any proposed development. The required dedication in this case being an additional ten feet, to the existing fifteen feet from centerline of Old Gregg Street, for a total of twenty-five feet. Our waiver request is based on the contention that the requested right of way dedication is for the purpose of constructing a fourteen -foot wide street from centerline, five feet of green space and a six-foot sidewalk. Sweetser, LTD. Partnership has agreed to build a six-foot sidewalk on the east side of Gregg Avenue along the SWEPCO property as per the request of Chuck Rutherford, the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator for the City of Fayetteville. The rationale for building the sidewalk on the east side of Gregg Avenue is because that is where it would be most beneficial to the public In light of the sidewalk being built on the other side of the street; it stands to reason that because the commercial design standards require a 15 foptllandscaped strip along the frontage of the proposed development, the need for a 5 fobt green space within the right of way is no longer necessary. Additionally, the street improvements, which are proposed in association with this project, include widening the street to fourteen feet from centerline. These improvements include curb and gutter and can be done within the existing fifteen feet of right of way, thus, eliminating the need for additional right of way dedication. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, P • STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • IAND SURVEYING • /67 Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 25 LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use umt 21) in 1-1 district. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is a large scale development submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in I -I district. The applicant is proposing to construct 650 to 800 storage units. The property is located north of Ridout Lumber on Old Gregg Avenue. Staff is recommending approval subject to 11 conditions of approval Are there any further conditions? Conklin: There are no further conditions. Odom: Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No, we don't. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen and Associates, representing Sweetser's on this project. I don't believe that there are any position to the conditions of approval I believe that was all worked out in Subdivision Committee. Odom: Do you have any other presentation that you would like to make at this time before we take comments from the public? Hennelly: No sir. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let's do this then. Let's take public comment. any member of the audience like to address us on this large scale development issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: flofi Cori'?" ziaX) Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 26 Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. Let's take questions and comments from the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I have a question of staff. Condition number 6 talks about the tree preservation act being violated and a fine being assessed, it doesn't state how much that fine was. I was just cunous how much it was and how it was calculated. Conklin: Sure. Kim Hesse our Landscape Administrator is here this evening and I'll ask her to come up to the podium and explain to you how that fine was assessed. Hesse: What we assessed was a $500 apiece fine for each tree, $1,000. That fine has not been assessed at this time, I'm waiting for approval for that initiation. • Shackelford: Is that a set fee, $500 per rare tree? Hesse: That's the maximum fine by state law. Odom: By state law, is that what you said Kim? The applicant is in agreement with that? Hesse: I presented this to the applicant prior to review by the City. He's aware of it and is willing to pay those fines. Odom: In addition, no additional tree canopy will be removed from the site, is that correct? Hesse: That's correct. The existing tree canopy that remains on the site, is on either side of Skull Creek, to the far west of the site. There may be one other tree near the right-of- way. They propose, through additional plantings that's required for other ordinances, they will be planting back 17 pin oaks. In my memo, I pretty much go through the percentages. What was existing on the site was 8 15%. With those two trees that would have added about 2%. They would have had approximately 10% counting those two trees that were removed. Allen: Hesse: I still didn't hear what you said. Are you saying 10%? There was 10% including all the trees that were existing on the site. After the two walnut trees were removed, that brought it to 8.15% canopy coverage. I guess what I'm saying, they never had 15% existing to begin with Odom: The commercial site development standards, they are adding an additional 3.04%, is Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 27 that right? Hesse: Yes. Odom: So they are going to have a total tree canopy of 11.2% and you are in agreement with that? Hesse: Yes. Bunch: Kim, could you please develop a little further how come the 10% penalty was not assessed that the tree preservation ordinance calls for if trees are removed within 5 years prior to the development of the site? Hesse: Basically I think there are two ways to interpret that. If you look at the ordinance, it says, if trees have been removed below the minimum percent canopy within five years of application for development, the replacement canopy requirement shall be increased by 10% of total canopy. To me that means they have to add 10% of the total canopy which is not 10%, that would be 1.5%. Whether or not that was the intent of the ordinance, that's how I interpret it. I've had people interpret it both ways. To me, I think that clause was put in there for a less severe avoidance of the ordinance or maybe no knowledge of the ordinance and more for a situation where you have a landowner that possibly would clear a site in preparation for sale. This situation, I felt was a little bit more, I felt quite confident that they knew that those trees were there obviously, the applicant knows of the tree preservation ordinance, it was quite clear to me by the date that it was submitted to the City that this specific development was already proposed at the time those trees were removed. I received a phone call from a citizen that they were removed the day before this phone call and within ten days, this was submitted to the City. Certainly, he was aware of the situation at the time they removed the trees. That's more of a blatant avoidance, just not following the ordinance at all. I really have always felt that the five year clause was more for something a little more subtle. It's up to this Commission to determine whether you want the additional 10% or if you prefer the fine. It really is going to depend on the number of trees on how you interpret that. Odom: I think it's up to you. If the applicant disagrees with you then it's up to us to interpret your decision. Hesse: My recommendation is that we fine. Bunch: Does the ordinance read that it's mutually exclusive? It seems like it's not a double • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 28 • indemnity, both parts can be activated. Was there a tree preservation plan submitted prior to any grading work? Hesse: No. Bunch: So, that's a blatant disregard for the ordinance there? Hesse: Right. Which is why I chose to fine. Bunch: All parties involved and the applicants are not new to the process in Fayetteville are they? They have been here a while and should be well familiar with the ordinance. Hesse: Yes. Allen: Why would they not have to bring it up to the 15% and pay the fine? Hesse: I can see them, by this ordinance the way I interpret it having them bring it up to maybe 1.5% more than the 15%. Bunch: Or possibly the 25%? Hesse: It depends on how you interpret it. In my interpretation, it does say 10% of the total canopy. I've had to interpret that in the past in other situations. Not for this specific thing but for other ordinances where possibly there was a stipulation that they had to come back and save all the trees. It didn't talk about percentage, it talks about trees or individual canopy. It's kind of the same thing. This says 10% of the total canopy I'm reluctant to have them add more trees because of the fact the condition of the site, the condition of the soil. It has been used as a storage facility for Washington County. I don't know how many layers of gravel has been put on that site. For them to prepare for trees that they require, they are going to have to do some cutting and get some soil in there. I'm just not confident those trees would survive and the more we put out there, I don't know if we would be gaining canopy. Odom: I'm Just trying to understand. The total canopy, If you add those two trees back in there was 10.5% of the site. That's what you are saying, nght? Hesse: It was just barely over 10%, like 10.1%. Odom: So the 10% penalty, what you are saying is they would have to add another 1% Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 29 Hesse: Bunch: • because that's 10% of the canopy that was on the site before they cut the trees down. That's where you get your additional 1%? Yes. That was part of my question as whether or not it's just a flat 10% across the board that would be added to whatever the existing canopy was or to the 15%. Where does the 15% come in? We know that it was less than 15% initially. We really don't know because it was cut before the tree plan was filed but the photographs do show. Somebody snuck in the middle of the night and cut the trees down. We can't count them because they got rid of them already. To me, the penalty for a blatant disregard on that, $1,000 is a pretty light penalty that would open up Pandora's Box to wholesale tree cutting in Fayetteville prior to the time that our new ordinance is finished and voted upon. Right now we are kind of in limbo and this situation is fairly critical. Another thing I'm looking at is the extensive amount of building and asphalt on this site with nothing to break it up. That's one reason I was looking at the increase percentages to, in some way, offset the effects of all that asphalt. That's going to create a tremendous hot spot even though ft is right next door to the University farm. I would tend to be in favor of exercising a 10% as a mitigation in addition to whatever has to be put in for other design standards The penalty, the fine, as well as additional acreage and if it requires soil removal and replacement to accommodate that then, that's the way it is because those trees that were existing that were cut, apparently their root system had found good soil. Hesse: Yes, that's possible. Those trees were likely there before it was used for it's latest use. I'm sure those trees were there at the time. Bunch: How large were they? Where they walnuts? Hesse: They were walnut trees. Bunch: How large? Hesse: They were over 24 inches in diameter but I do not have an accurate size. Bunch: They probably predate the invention of asphalt and County Road Departments and that sort of thing. Hesse: They predate the use of the County Road Department, certainly. Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 30 Allen: I have the very same concerns and agree with Commissioner Bunch. I wondered whether or not you saw the trees? Did you go out to the site before the trees were cut? Hesse: No. I'm basing this off of information Just from remembering what was there, from aerial photographs. The trees were removed from the site when I got to the site. Allen: I talked to Ralph Ness, who's office was there for a long time and he recalled a good bit about the number of trees. There were six or seven in back and three or four in the front, as best he could recall. I drove by and I see no trees unless they are way back, those scrubby trees. It said "keep out", so I obeyed the rules but I want them to obey the rules too. This certainly, a realtor who's been here since the 1960's I think, I would like to send a real clear message that we obey our rules and our ordinances. Marr: Kim, I have a question. If the requirement for I-1 is 15%, why we not be requiring 15%? Hesse: The ordinance only requires that you replace or maintain what's existing on the site prior to the development. What was existing on the site prior to development, as far we can tell is 10%. Allen: As far as we can tell. Hesse: Yes. From aerial photos that go back to 1997. Marr: What I'm reading the requirement in an 1-1 zone is 15%, what is that? Educate me. Hesse: If you had a site that was half covered, 50% covered, you would have to preserve 15% of the whole site, meaning you would have to lose 35% of that canopy. If you started with no trees, you would not be required to preserve or replace any trees based on our current ordinance. Allen: So you can fairly cheaply cut your trees down and be fined $500 a tree? Odom: Let's address the Chair before we speak. Conunissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: I Just want to make two points real quickly. First of all, we are talking like we are letting the developer off and we need to remember that we are penalizing them to the maximum letter of state law. We don't have the choice to set what our fee is. That is set for us and it's my understanding that state law dictates $500 per tree is the Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 31 Marr: Odom: Hesse: maximum. She is fining him the maximum. Second, I think we need to remember this is 1-1, heavy commercial zoning and it's been used as a storage facility for the State Highway Department for quite some time. It's not like this was a pristine forest two weeks ago. We did lose two trees and that wasn't right. We are fining the developer the maximum we can fine them as defined by state law. I agree that probably shouldn't have been done but I think we are addressing it with the fine. That's what Ms. Hesse has done in this situation and 1 support her recommendation to go forward on the landscape. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford. My thoughts on it are, would a more appropriate fine be to say we should require the minimum if they would have been a brand new development, is that more of an impact to say, let's require the 15% which gives us 4% more as opposed to the dollar amount fine of $500 per tree. I'm just wondering if any consideration was given or if it's purely a fine versus a beginning site coverage. The way I read Kim's report, and you can jump in, basically the reason you decided on the fine is we don't have a good way of insuring the replacement trees that we have are properly maintained or survive. That and basically, in the past, we have always allowed to use our Parking Lot Standards or the Commercial Design Standards as replacement trees. With the Commercial Design Standards, they are installing 17 oak trees which would reach that replacement plus the 10% of that existing canopy. If you interpret it that way, they are paying a fine and they are replacing the trees. Based on the way we have always done it since I started and prior to my employment here, they've always allowed the other requirements to equal replacement trees. So, they are doing that by meeting the Commercial Design Standards. Marr: That's 11.2%? Hesse: That's if you interpret it the way I look at it. Hoffman: I would like to expand our discussion concerning the landscaping of the site. We've got before us a really large mini -storage facility going in and filling in an already developed area of town. Directly south of the property there is a Master Street Plan proposed and I believe a SWEPCO utility facility of some sort proposed to go into that. The master street would then be constructed by SWEPCO that would directly adjoin this property and, at some time in the future, connect with the Ernie Jacks Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 32 Boulevard. With the replacement canopy in mind, with the fine, I agree with your assessment as you've made it. I would take it a step further though and say that we need to consider the development as a whole and when we're thinking about it, we need to think about what's going to be passing this on the south property line in the future. I would propose, in addition to what's been shown on these plans, that the view obscuring vines along that fence be planted, the landscaping along the fence line would additionally mitigate the view and screen the property. That is required in the Commercial Design Standards for a commercial development, this is heavy commercial/light industrial. Could you give a recommendation on that item? Hesse: Whether they should be required to put up screening? Hoffman: They've got chain link fence around three sides of the property, a nice looking fence in the front, wrought iron with brick, but on the south property line if we are going to have a street going in, I would like to see more than just a chain link fence. I think it's an ordinance requirement. On page 4.6 of our packets we've got screening for commercial buildings and development, "that shall mean a view obscuring fence, view obscuring berm, architectural treatment or vegetation or a combination of the four." Conklin: That section of the ordinance is talking about mechanical and utility equipment, trash enclosures We had this discussion early on with regard to what is required to be screened for mini -storage. We actually have an ordinance section that states if it's adjacent residential, then you have screen. We informed them that they had to screen until we figured out that it wasn't adjacent to residential. Hoffman: This says screening for commercial buildings and development in my packet I'm looking at page 4.6, item two. Conklin: The things that we screen at that section are utility equipment, trash enclosures. We are not trying to hide our commercial development. This is an industrial development, it's an industrial use, it's warehousing. We have not in the past screened warehousing unless is was adjacent to residential zoning. I think it's a great idea. Hoffman: 1 think it's a requirement, the way I'm reading this. The reason I say that is, we have screened or applied the Commercial Design Standards which is almost impossible to do with mini -storage buildings to areas that can be seen from a public way. WalMart has a berm. Conklin: We were trying to screen their loading dock area.