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. . >,xi '1'] , / Iy R'a al T. ' ':(: t .�,^. ��. .,.•, 9.� 1 L �I. 1..•Y I�i��1ayp� III ����jjl f� • r(�1 jf o p y Y 1 1 J+e iii lye a [(t J u n i s rvJ /! .i 4 1 1 0 i� l�p�T�" Y�y4� r o '��g y�� /1/ �, I �o .•i / 4 Fr x.11 -](Lll pp t s a f/ y+ o,. o i) {�c— w�.. Gp Y W .' PI S. .y .i i Li /.r ✓1 o E f J I�.�� . ,� ce . L �,i'• e Y m tL? aP� n 111 o � 'r ! ..-a 1W ^ina , , i J 11 . 9', 0. a ^ SL .�, l ` r ♦ h t 1 ti .: r t/ hIV 1 a rttte T✓jf e j a r Y 1� ) u <.I O� e 0 �o ♦ o e : A Ipp O V � QIl 41 )Y V i Cti~ ii YJ 'U '�d' � � 0'.� __ . ♦� f • Yi 'M1 f'�� ° i) T V v`l�i i 1 i M1✓ /� / ) ° to r ♦♦♦ / C r(1 O ' Yf/ ' b , �p� s C f ) '.� 1' 1. �� a �lrJ ��.lJ 4 '. 1 o bO `: 1/, ° ^�,• `` } J. o yTa•m' .J "" _L `�.nil) N�.'!^:t-. ` f (� i"' , i if 11 rr5r-Py/ii d �IJ (,may\L*fh) S &JJ&JJ � jJP jY i1 g2(i.L ♦ a � ... r. >. o c � � Sao a YAi °+ ' o �� .'3 '7.t 1 i � 4 rl. , t),o : t � ¢ o �� a ^Yl0 Vr� • ! }'}�t�,n � i, �,_„' 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. S C1 Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 33 Hoffman: We've got loading docks here. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to consider the aesthetics of this project as a whole. Conklin: I agree. I think it's a great idea. Typically we've had these requests in C-2 zoning districts through a conditional use process and, as you are aware as the Planning Commission, we have gone out and made them build fences and put in shrubs or pines or whatever type of vegetation to help screen. This is zoned I-1, heavy commercial/light industrial. There are many storage units used for warehousing. Hoffman: I don't have a problem with the use. I think they are indeed a use by right and I think we have an obligation to make this development as attractive as we can from all potential views. Conklin: I understand that. I believe we do have an ordinance in our code book that states, when you do have to screen mini storage units and that's when they are adjacent to residential. I do believe the ordinance does address that. I don't think it would be appropriate to hide these buildings in an I-1 zone. If you feel differently and you want to place a condition on this, you could certainly do that as a Commission. We had a discussion with the applicant regarding the screening requirement. Initially, I thought across the street was zoned residential to the east, actually it's SWEPCO's shop area, which is zoned I-1 and therefore doesn't come into play. To the south is Ridout Lumber and also the SWEPCO Substation that will be coming to you in the next few months, zoned I-1. Once again, I don't think we can require that screening. Odom: I think we need to have clarification before you make your next statement. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to make an additional requirement that is not in the ordinance to a use by right. We don't have the authority to create another obligation. Lorel may have her interpretation which is that it is required, I understand that. You can't say that we have the right. Conklin: You do not have the right. Let me just clarify that too, if you do disagree with my interpretation, that does go to the Board of Adjustment and you can have me overruled. They meet once a month. Hoffman: Let me be specific. In this item 2A, I read the first part of it but it's screening for commercial buildings and development, the use classification of this zoning is heavy commercial/light industrial so I would say that we at least have the commercial wording in the zoning designation itself. The vegetation or a combination of the four should be of sufficient height to prevent the view of the screened items from vehicular and pedestrian Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 34 traffic on adjacent streets and from residential property. I'm saying that we have an adjacent street here. Conklin: What are the screened items though? That's what I'm looking at. Hoffman: The building. The screening for commercial building development. Conklin: Then the ordinance talks about mechanical, utility equipment, trash enclosures and outdoor storage and material and equipment shall be screened if visible for the highway, street right-of-way or from residential property. Hoffman: That's item B, I'm not even looking at that. I'm looking at item A. I'm pushing this because I'm seeing the area is primarily residential. We will have a street by it. We could conceivably, back in the interlines back there, have some residential development passing by this. Conklin: I agree. The reason why I'm being conservative on this is that we also have an ordinance that talks about when you have to screen mini -storage units from view. That talks about if it's adjacent to residential zoning districts. When that ordinance was passed, that was only about five years ago, there was discussion with regard to when you screen mini -storage units and they stated that is was adjacent to residential zoning districts. That's why I'm taking a hard stance on this. I really believe this ordinance doesn't require us to hide these mini -storage units in an I-1 zoning district. Hoffman: I want to back up and say that I do want to be fair to everybody and, in all fairness, it is a general rule that when you have a more specific ordinance, Conrad was pointing that out, that a more specific rule applies. However, I think I do have a case here for at least some consideration. We have Commercial Design Standards that we always apply to commercial developments unless they are completely and totally industrial. Conklin: I guess that's where we are at odds. Is this a commercial development or is this a warehousing mini -storage development? Hoffman: Of course we've got the commercial up front. I think they have dealt with that. We can move on. I think I've said enough and I don't want to repeat myself too much. They have dealt with the front facade with the brick and with the wrought iron fencing and screening and the living quarters and office. That's all I have to say at the moment. Bunch: Just kind of a housekeeping note here. Tim, is the existing fence line for the southern • C1 Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 35 border of this property, is that same as the property line? Maybe Tom could answer this. Hennelly: That fence line is until you get to about the western quarter of that south boundary where there is a creek and the fence line deviates slightly from the property line. Bunch: Who owns the piece of property between the fence line and the driveway that goes to the private residence? I saw some flags out, to the south is a private drive that goes down to a house. Conklin: That is Max Parker. He currently owns that property. Bunch: I guess part of the question that I'm trying to determine is, where is this new road going to go? The Master Street Plan requirement and the SWEPCO considerations, is it in the property between that private drive and the fence line? Is the private property going to be sold to SWEPCO? Conklin: My initial meetings with SWEPCO representatives, I believe they are purchasing the remainder of that property that Ridout Lumber didn't purchase so they will own the property all the way up to Gregg Street. I have made them aware of the requirement of the Master Street Plan. With regard to where the Master Street Plan is located in relationship to this mini -storage unit, I would say it's approximately 30 to 50 feet south of this property line. Bunch: It's being purchased and will no longer be residential? That has a bearing on residential view across the street from this. Conklin: That's a very good point that you make. My understanding is that the house will be removed. Bunch: Is that house part of this so-called SWEPCO deal? Conklin: That is my understanding. Bunch: How do we determine that? Conklin: They told me that. That's all I have and if SWEPCO backs out of the deal and walks away, we have no guarantees. There is a single family home on that property owned by Max Parker, zoned I-1, heavy commercial/light industrial at this time. That is the only • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 36 residence that would be close to this mini -storage. Bunch: I don't know if that answers all the questions. If it's close to it, we still don't know if we have residential abutting this process. Odom: Well we don't have residential zoning but we have a potential residence. Conklin: Just for the Commission to be aware, it does say residential use. If you want to use Max Parker's property and try to justify screening, it does say residential use, for screening. Hoffman: That wasn't my intent. Conklin: I did not think about Mr. Parker's house back on the end of that private drive as residential use as I've been talking with SWEPCO about their ambitious plans for their new transmission lines through Fayetteville. Marr: My question is the person currently living in that residence, have they expressed any concern about screening of this? Conklin: Mr. Parker has not expressed any concern to me at this time. Hoover: I wasn't at Subdivision so, if I'm considering this under the Commercial Design Standards I would like to know what the materials are and how the articulation are done and all that. Would you mind presenting that? Hennelly: That's the reason Mr. Sweetser came up with the illustration was to try to get across the idea that he is not trying to put in a standard metal building that would be viewed from Gregg Street. I don't know whether or not it's clear from the illustration, from the distance that you are from, but the facades of all the buildings that will be facing Gregg Street will be brick. There is a two-story building on the north side, the east end of the north row of buildings, that will house a 24 hour caretaker, a live-in couple or person that will stay there and oversee the property. The upper story of that is a stucco. Again, this is not intended to show you exactly the colors this is just the best that the illustrator could do in the time available to show the materials that he intended on using, something other than sheet metal, more like brick or Petra stone or something of that nature to face the buildings with. As well as the fence that was alluded to earlier along the front is a wrought iron fence with either brick or stone columns on 30 or 50 foot centers, I can't recall. It won't look like your standard mini -storage facility as you • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 37 drive down Gregg Street. Hoover: I just want to say one of my struggles with this whole project is, if you look at the map and you look at what is I-1 zoning along here, it's this small pocket along Gregg Street. I'm trying to understand what our vision is for Gregg Street. I know that this is their use by right. I think that if I'm going to look at this as Commercial Design Standards, I don't see that all these garage doors facing the street qualify. The other issue I had, the others, when I was reading the 2020 Plan and I know this is too late to do on this piece of property but, under industrial areas it says, identifying rezone inappropriately zoned industrial areas to more appropriate uses. I certainly see that this is the case for that. I know it's too late and I guess what I'm trying to appeal to, it also notes in here that south of this area that it was down zoned, is that something that a property owner brought in to down zone their own property? How do we take care of this in the future? Conklin: The City in the past has not initiated downzoning of private property. There are several areas in Fayetteville that we have been approached by neighborhoods regarding downzoning property. One of those recently was University Avenue where that entire east side of University Avenue just south of California Avenue is zoned I-1. We could have this mini -storage project in that neighborhood. That's one area. There is also an area up on Mission Boulevard that we have been concerned about. I would be more than happy to sit down with our new interim City Attorney and talk to him about the process of downzoning private property without the actual property owner's petition. Hoover: How did this just south of Gregg get down zoned? Conklin: South of Gregg? Hoover: Where it says that some of the industrial land on south Gregg has recently been rezoned to allow high density residential use near the University. Was that originally I-1, where all that multi family is? Conklin: That is where a property owner comes to our office and requests that the property be down zoned. For example, we recently had the rezoning off of Shiloh Drive south of Wedington where it's currently zoned C-2 on I-540, they petitioned for R-2. That's how downzoning does occur. Hoover: So it did come from the property owner on that. • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 38 Conklin: Yes, as a city, I think we do need to take a look at areas that are inappropriate and I we do need to implement that part of the General Plan 2020. Hennelly: If I could also say, in all fairness to the applicant, he has made several attempts to make this project more visually appealing than what the standard mini -storage unit would be, to include curb and gutter along the entire frontage in addition to the fence and different facing. So, as far as this being an eyesore, there is a need for this type of business in the city and I think he's done a really good job at trying to make this as appealing as this use can be. Hoover: What would make it more appealing for me is, if the front part was some type of commercial or office space so there was a buffer between it. When I was going down the street, I didn't have to look at this. There is several of those along College Avenue that I don't even realize there are mini -storage units behind some commercial buildings. Was that ever a consideration? Hennelly: The one thing that was considered, to answer your question, no ma'am, it was not. The one thing that was considered is, the configuration of these units individually has not been settled upon yet. They range from 5 feet wide and 10 feet deep to 10 feet wide and 40 feet deep or the width the building. The garage doors were shown on the front of these buildings that face Gregg Street to indicate that could possibly be the case. It doesn't necessarily have to be the case. There will be facilities in here, units in here, that will be as deep as the building is wide which would preclude a garage door from being on that side. I'm sure that every attempt could be made to try and configure it that way. Like I say, he hasn't settled on how many different, the reason for the large variance in 650 to 800 units, because he has not settled on the configuration of each building yet. Hoover: I also have an issue with, if we have a street on the Master Street Plan which you are saying we do, that this will be viewed from the street. All the sides of those, what material are the in walls out of? Hennelly: Currently they are sheet metal. Allen: Do you plan to have a sign and if so, what kind and where would it be placed? Hennelly: Yes ma'am. There has been an addition since this illustration was done of a pole sign. I got with Sara Edwards from the City Planning Office and she faxed me the guidelines for how tall. If you'll look on the plan, the recent plan that was submitted, there is a Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 39 pole sign indicated just south and east of the handicap space. That sign will be, I believe from the right-of-way that's indicated on our plan is allowed to be 27 feet high and have a total square footage of 34 square feet. It will obviously comply with the ordinance that regards to freestanding signs. Allen: Can you point to where it would be on the illustration? Hennelly: Yes. Roughly in this location here. That's 12 feet behind the right-of-way which allows the sign to be 27 feet tall and have a square footage of 34 square feet, where we have it located. Hoover: I have a question along the same lines, if we are considering that all these structures should fall in Commercial Design Standards, should we be looking at a drawing of the signage? Conklin: I guess I'm at odds with the Commission this evening with whether or not these are commercial buildings. I consider them mini -storage warehouse buildings. With regard to the actual pole sign, staff is not recommending a monument sign at this location. Ridout Lumber does have a pole sign directly south of this location. Once again, if you believe that the Commercial Design Standards apply for the sign, these are mini -storage units used for storage of items, warehousing. Hoffman: Does any Commissioner have anything to say before we take public comment? Did you have anything that you wanted to finish up with on your presentation? Hennelly: There is one thing that was brought up at one of the earlier meetings, I would like to clarify the description of this project does call for 17 buildings and there are 18 buildings that is shown. I just wanted to clear that up. Bunch: Ron, since this is quite an expanse of paving and buildings, have you had a chance to review the drainage considerations and are they adequate? Also, in the southwest comer where the floodplain crosses it, have those issues been met satisfactorily? Petrie: Yes, they have submitted the required information for preliminary drainage report and they have shown detention will not be necessary for this site. They will be required to get a floodplain development permit for any development in the floodplain. They have gone back and revised their plan to eliminate any fill in the floodway. You can look on the plan, they are not going to do any work in the floodway even though all this has been filled by the County. They have met the engineering requirements. • Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 40 Shackelford: Question of the applicant, it was noted earlier that we don't have a signed Condition of Approval on this, I believe you also noted you are in agreement with all that. Is there any other issue on the 11 conditions that we need to discuss? Anything else? Hennelly: The only issue that came up, as Commissioner Hoffman brought up, is the screening, whether or not that is required as well as the dedication of the right-of-way. You should have a letter in your packet that addresses the dedication of right-of-way. The applicant has agreed to construct the required sidewalk for this development on the east side of what is four lane Gregg Street right now, up against the fence that bounds the SWEPCO property. The reason for that is because the Sidewalk and Trails Administrator, Chuck Rutherford, felt that would be the location where this sidewalk would be most beneficial to the public. The applicant, Mr. Sweetser doesn't see that he's going to have much walk up traffic to a mini -storage unit. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said, I think I'm ready to form a motion here. I'm in agreement with staff comments, I believe that storage units are not commercial buildings. I feel that this is a right by use in an I-1 heavy industrial property. So, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion for approval of LSD 01-1.00, based on all staff comments. Odom: I'll second. We have a motion and second to approve LSD 01-1.00 subject to all staff comments. AMENDMENT: Hoffman: I just want to make an amendment to require view obscuring vegetation on the southern property fence line to be added to the conditions of approval. Odom: We have a motion for an amendment to include view obscuring vegetation.. Hoffman: To be worked out with the Landscape Administrator. She'll know best what will grow there. Marr: The south side is the Master Street Plan right? Hoffman: Yes. Man: I'll second. Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 41 Odom: We have a motion and a second for an amendment which we will vote on first and I will give you an opportunity to comment on it before we vote. Hennelly: The applicant does have a contention with that requirement for the same reason that he didn't feel that it should be required for him to screen the fronts of these buildings. He has a significant investment of what will end up being a couple of a million dollars in this trying to market a product to the public and doesn't feel that it is fair for him to have to hide this project from the people that he is trying to market it to. Additionally, I understand that SWEPCO will, sometime in the future, to develop that property into a substation and I guess subsequently dedicate the right-of-way. However, right now the right-of-way is not dedicated. So, really that boundary is not bounded by anything but a proposed street on the Master Street Plan. Shackelford: I'm concerned about this. My understanding from earlier conversation, it is the way that you read the ordinances that affects this that, it is not required given the conditions of this, this is not a conditional use but a use by right. You, if I'm remembering correctly, showed some concern in requiring additional conditions of approval on this property considering we may not have the right by ordinance to do it if it's a use by right. Can you expand a little bit on this please? Conklin: Sure. I do not think the Planning Commission has the authority to require screening on the south side since it adjoins I-1 zoned property. The ordinance states that if it adjoins residential property, you can screen a residential use. Basically, I don't think the Planning Commission has the authority to do that. Shackelford: With that being said, I don't think I'll support the amendment. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't know if this is the time or place that we need to weigh into that. It sounds like the Board of Adjustment is the area that should be heard instead of this level. I will not support the amendment. Bunch: In support of the amendment, the applicant just stated that SWEPCO has not done anything on this property. Therefore, we should not be looking at that and reverse to being a residential use at this time. Even though it is zoned industrial, it is a residential use. So, in looking at that as it is a residential use with no SWEPCO presence there, I will support the amendment. Odom: Any further discussion on the amendment? Call the roll on the amendment. L� L Planning Commission February 26, 2001 Page 42 ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the amendment to the conditions of approval for LSD 01-1.00 is approved by a vote of 4-3-0, with Commissioners Man, Odom and Shackelford voting "No". Hoffman: Let me explain a little bit to you about the reasons for this amendment and my feelings about it. I think you are really going to know that there are mini -storage facilities there, particularly with the 27 foot sign. I'm not objecting to that, I'm not objecting to the overhead doors although I do share your concern. With 18 buildings and the publicity and it's a highly traveled street, I'm just trying to raise the benchmark a bit on our commercial developments. I do think this is a heavy commercial use because it's called out thusly in the zoning ordinance. I'm really not trying to be punitive but just trying to add some amenities. . Hennelly: I can see your point however, I can also see that on the south side of this right-of-way will be a huge SWEPCO substation which I believe everybody will agree is not pleasing to the eye, much less so than some mini -storage units. To me the addition of some screening on the north side of this right-of-way really would have a minimal affect on obscuring any unpleasant view on a short stretch of street. I guess if we were to contend this, if this was approved with this condition, that we would be able to appeal it to City Council, is that correct? Conklin: Yes, on a large scale development you have ten working days to appeal that decision. Odom: We have a motion and a second on the underlying motion to approve LSD 01-1.00, do we have any further discussion? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 01-1.00 is approved by a vote of 4-3-0, with Commissioners Bunch, Hoover and Allen voting "No". i STAFF REVIEW FORM X Agenda Request Contract Review Grant Review For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of March 20, 2001. FROM: Tim Conklin Planning Public Works Name Division Department ni,ssvLL N'WuMaLnL; LV ayyiova a wasver Vs ssyu,.-Vs-way ueo.s cacson Lor via uregg Avenue as requested §166.10(C) for LSD 01-1.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and west of Gregg Street. COST TO CITY: Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name Account Number Funds used to date Program Name Project Number Remaining balance Fund BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Coordinator Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Acc ing Manager Date ADA Coordinator Date City Attor ey Date Internal Auditor Date Purchasing Officer Date s'TAfi'k±[:uMMCNUA'rsoN: start recommences approval or this request. Planning Commission voted 4-3-0 to forward this to City Council with Commissioners Bunch, Hoover and Allen voting "No". Division Head Department Director Administrative Services Director Mayor S-ol Cross Reference Date Date New Item: Yes No Date Prev Ord/Res#: Date Orig Contract Date: FAYETTEVI ELE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDE To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk Date: April 9, 2001 Attached is a copy of the resolution approving a waiver reducing the right-of-way dedication to Old Gregg Avenue for LSD 01-1.00 by Sweetser LTD Partnership. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk. nit