Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 PACKET 04.B.01. TO: Danette Parr, Economic Development Director FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: November 7, 2014 RE: Park Place Storage Project Our office received a conditional use permit and variance applications from Paul Jorgensen, the developer proposing to develop a 12.94 acre vacant commercial parcel located at 7552 West Point Douglas Road. The project consists of constructing five self-storage structures with a cumulative gross floor area of 237,778 square feet. Attached is a copy of the Park Place Storage site plan, grading and erosion control plan, preliminary landscaping plan, and three colored building illustrations. The property is zoned B-2, Retail Business District. The proposed self-storage use is permitted as a conditional use. Outdoor storage is not proposed. The project is not a public storage facility. Individual storage units will be owned by individuals through a condominium association and the association will share an undivided interest in the common areas (e.g. yard area, stormwater basin, landscaping, drive aisles, etc.). A public a hearing notice was published in the South Washington Bulletin’s November 5, 2014 issue. This hearing notice announced that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at their meeting on November 27, 2014. The public hearing pertains to the conditional use permit application for the development of this proposed facility and variances to the following city ordinance regulations: Title 11-6-5, Landscaping Requirements Title 11-6-13, Architecture Title 11-10D(7), Self-storage Facility Landscaping The total impervious surface area for the 12.9 acre site is approximately 420,252 sq. ft. (9.65 acres) or approximately 75 percent of the site. The remaining green/open space is approximately 3.3 acres (25 percent of the site). The north side yard and rear yard is ten feet wide. The majority of the open space is along the southerly boundary line where a stormwater basin and snow storage areas are proposed. The front yard setback averages approximately 36 feet (minimum front yard setback is 30 feet). Because there is so much impervious surfaces and a large stormwater basin to accommodate enough storage capacity for runoff, the amount of green space remaining for landscaping is significantly limited. Minimum landscaping regulations require more plant quantities than what the available green space can reasonably accommodate. For the City’s consideration, an alternative compliance to the minimum landscaping standards for this type of commercial use could be a cash payment to the City in lieu of planting vegetation. This payment would be deposited into the City’s Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 2 of 7 landscaping initiative account for future public landscaping improvements in this vicinity of the community. If this idea is acceptable, a variance to ordinance regulations will not be necessary. City staff would not support a variance to substantially reduce plant quantities without cash payment to the City that is equivalent to the unit prices for those plant species that are not planted. A summary of the ordinance requirements for landscaping and the developer’s proposal for landscaping is compared in the table below: Required Minimum Required Plantings Proposed Quantities Quantities Overstory Deciduous Trees 131 17 Coniferous 122 13 Large Shrub 282 109 Small Shrub 282 418 It has not yet been determined if the 109 spartan junipers along the north side (next to the Metro Park and Ride site) of the storage facility will be permitted. There is a city watermain along this property boundary line and these evergreen shrubs might be prohibited on top of this watermain. If landscaping is not recommended and if screening public’s view from the Metro Park and Ride site is critical, then a privacy fence might be required. City staff would not recommend chain-linked fencing with slates interwoven in the fence, but maybe a maintenance free fencing material would be acceptable. This type of fencing is inconsistent with the wrought iron designed type of fencing that has been required in the Gateway District, but the wrought iron fence design will not adequately obscure public view from the Park and Ride site. Architecture The five storage structures range from the smallest building (Building E) with 24,940 sq. ft. to the largest (Building C) with 64,800 sq. ft. The table below summarizes the height, dimensions and square footage for each building: Building Building Height Building Dimensions Gross Floor Area Building A 20 ft. (approx.) 50 ft. x 594 ft. 29,828 sq. ft. Building B 16 ft. – 17.5 ft. 90 ft. x 605 ft. 56,610 sq. ft. Building C 16 ft. – 17.5 ft. 90 ft. x 720 ft. 64,800 sq. ft. Building D 16 ft. – 17.5 ft. 80 ft. x 770 ft. 61,600 sq. ft. Building E 16 ft. – 17.5 ft. 30 ft. x 831 ft. 24,940 sq. ft. Total - - 237,778 sq. ft. All the buildings parallel West Point Douglas Road. Building A is closest to the frontage road and is the taller building of the five proposed structures. The exterior materials for this structure is a precast concrete panel. Building A is proposed to have a variety of panel textures, colors and design to enhance its appearance from public roadways. This design includes four – 1’ x 30’ wall extensions forward from the main structure for purposes of providing a change in the wall plane, texture and masonry patterns that will divide the 594 foot Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 3 of 7 wall length into scaled proportions. These extensions will also be approximately two feet above the main roof height for purposes of providing a varying roof-line. Windows are also proposed along the upper elevation of Building A’s exterior wall with a horizontal metal panel canopy facing the public roadways. This design generally complies with the architecture requirements. The proposed concrete panels facing the public roadways for Building A could be considered a comparable material with the Class 1 general design objectives. This would only be supported as long as the concrete panels are not a “raked” texture and the color pigments are impregnated throughout the entire concrete panel. The insulated structural metal panels for the other four buildings interior to the site are not compliant with the commercial architecture requirement that a minimum of 65 percent of the building’s exterior materials consist of Class 1 materials. The total square footage for wall area on all five buildings is approximately 133,496 square feet. The front wall and two ends of Building A represents approximately 10.4 percent of Class 1 materials for all of the 133,496 sq. ft. total wall area. If the end walls for the other four buildings are constructed with Class 1 materials, then the total wall area comprising of Class 1 materials is approximately 17.7 percent. Class 1 materials comprise of copper panels, fired clay face brick, natural stone, transparent glass, synthetic or cultured stone, opaque or mirror window panels, and other comparable or superior materials. The proposed insulated structural metal panels is a Class 4 material and accounts for approximately 89.6 percent of all the exterior wall area for the five buildings. City ordinance stipulates that not more than 10 percent of a Class 4 material should be used for commercial buildings. City staff is also of the opinion that the exterior walls on the ends of the building’s interior to the site should be constructed with the same type of concrete panels as proposed along the front of Building A. The ends of these other building face the Metro Park and Ride on the north side of the site and the adjoining residential structure on the south side of the site. These end-caps and a portion of the wall facing east are visible from the public roadway. An illustration showing the ends of the building and wrapping a portion of Buildings B through E with Class 1 materials represents about 11,715 square feet or about nine percent of the total wall area for all five buildings. The red colored lines on the illustration below represents the approximate Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 4 of 7 0.05 percent wall space for the entire project. Additional information is needed to determine how these two types of materials can structurally be joined together. Connecting the concrete panel and an insulated structural metal panel probably can be achieved at the building’s corners, but additional construction details is needed to determine if the transition between the two materials at a midpoint of a wall face can comply with building code requirements. This proposed storage facility will generally only be accessed by unit owners through a security gate. For this reason and because of its location next to the railroad tracks, the City needs to decide if the architecture requirements was intended for this type of commercial use and if the 65 percent Class 1 material requirement was intended for walls that are interior to a site that are generally not or indirectly seen from public roadways. Self-storage Facility Regulations Title 11-10D(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires self-storage facilities to be a minimum of 300 feet from any residential use and/or residential zoning district. There is an existing residential dwelling on the abutting property to the southeast of project site. The distance between the residential dwelling and the closest storage building is approximately 150 feet. The developer is proposing to grade a five foot high earth-berm and plant evergreen trees and a variety of shrubs on the berm for purposes of mitigating sightlines from the dwelling into the storage facility property. An aerial photo of this area and a copy of the proposed landscaping plan are shown below. Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Aerial Photo dated 2009 Proposed Self-storage Facility Landscaping Plan Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 6 of 7 The question is whether or not a variance should be granted to allow the 300 foot minimum separation requirement between the self-storage facility and a residential dwelling to be reduced to approximately 150 feet. The proposed storage facility will not have any outdoor storage and will not create much daily traffic or outdoor parking. A security fence is proposed around the perimeter of the property boundaries. The fence design is required to appear like a wrought iron fence that is similar to other fences in the Gateway District. Request The Planning Division is interested in the Economic Development Authorities’ (EDA) recommendation concerning the conditional use permit and variance applications for the proposed Park Place Storage project. The EDA’s recommendation(s) pertaining to the exterior building materials, landscaping and screening between the adjoining residential structure and Buildings A and B will be appreciated and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. For your consideration, a recommendation or comment concerning the following issues would be appreciated. 1. Does the EDA believe the design and materials of the structure are consistent with what is envisioned for this corridor? 2. Is the proposed precast exposed aggregate panel on three sides of Building A comparable to Class 1 materials? 3. Should the exterior walls on the ends of Buildings A through E be required to have Class 1 materials or should all sides of the storage buildings be constructed with Class 1 materials? 4. Should the Class 1 material wrap around from the ends of all five buildings for a distance that is viewable from West Point Douglas Road? 5. Is the proposed insulated structural metal panels an acceptable material for the west side of Building A and the east and west walls for Buildings B through E? 6. Must the developer comply with the minimum landscaping requirements or can a cash payment to the City that is equivalent to the cost of plant materials not planted acceptable? 7. City ordinance requires a minimum of 300 feet between these two land uses. Should a variance be granted to allow the 150 feet of separation between the neighboring residential structure and the closest commercial storage building? Is the proposed landscaping screen between the residential and commercial structures adequate? Memo to Danette Parr Proposed Park Place Storage November 7, 2014 Page 7 of 7 8. If landscaping is not allowed along the north property boundary line because of the watermain, is a privacy fence required for purposes of screening public view from the Park and Ride site? 9. Should additional green space be required along the north side property line for purposes of providing a landscaped screen that does not encroach upon the existing watermain? This will reduce storage building sizes.