Z-5600-C Staff AnalysisMay 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
NAME: Chenal Mini -Storage — Revised Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 24,300 Chenal Parkway
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris Thornton/Patrick McGetrick
PROPOSAL: A revision to a previously approved and revised
conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
splitting of a single second phase into two separate
phases, to allow a reconfiguration of buildings, the
addition of climate controlled space and the addition
of a two-story building containing some general
commercial lease space. The property is zoned C-3.
2.
SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 350
feet north of Cantrell Road (Hwy. 10).
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD_
A conditional use permit for the phased construction of a mini -warehouse
development was first approved for this site in 1997. The first phase was
constructed at that time and has been in operation since then. The
current proposal does not expand the boundary of the site nor should it
change the development's compatibility with the neighborhood. Since the
original approval, addition nonresidential and multifamily development has
occurred in the general area around the site.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Pinnacle, Aberdeen and
DuQuesne Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site will continue to be accessed via the single driveway off of Chenal
Parkway. Four customer parking spaces are located adjacent to the office
building. Adequate driveways and parking are located around each of the
mini -warehouse buildings. The lower floor of the Phase IV building is
proposed to be used for permitted C-3 commercial and office uses. A 33 -
space parking lot will be located in front of this building. Uses within that
building must be limited to those requiring no more than 33 total parking
spaces. No restaurant is proposed or will be permitted in the Phase IV
building.
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
• Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is
required.
• The proposed parking area does not provide for the 8 -percent (1,117
square feet) of interior landscaping required by the landscape
ordinance. Interior landscape islands must be at least 7 Y2 feet in
width and 150 square feet in area. Additionally, a small amount of
building landscaping is required between the public parking and
building. There is considerable flexibility'with this requirement.
• A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required
along the northern perimeter of the site. In addition to this screening
requirement, the northern land use buffer are must be re-established
with trees and shrubs. This area has suffered significant erosion and
will require re -stabilization prior to a final certificate of occupancy being
issued.
• Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
• An irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any additional land clearing or grading activities at the
site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and
approved prior to the start of construction.
2. In accordance with Section 29-186(f), a Sketch Grading and Drainage
Plan will be required. Contents must address all requirements in
Section 29-188(a).
3. Provide a schedule showing dates for completing the installation of
erosion controls on site and restoring adjacent disturbed property.
4. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
2
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO • L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met. Separate water service to this
phase will be required unless the parcels are combined to form a
single parcel. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. On site fire protection
will be required and will be installed at the Developer's expense. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per Code.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. A CATA express
route is located along Cantrell Road, to the south.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MARCH 4, 2004)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff presented the
item and noted additional information was needed regarding building height and
design, signage, hours of operation, site lighting, dumpster screening and
fencing. Staff asked that the proposed phase lines be more clearly delineated
and any areas of outdoor storage be labeled. Staff noted that a copy of the Bill
of Assurance needed to be submitted. Staff informed Mr. McGetrick that the
uses proposed in one of the building (top floor warehouse and bottom floor
office/showroom) were not permitted in C-3, even with a conditional use. He was
asked to clarify the use of that building. Public Works and Landscape
Comments were discussed at length. It was noted.that this site was currently in
violation of the City's Land Alteration Ordinances and a restoration plan needed
to be submitted. Mr. McGetrick was advised to submit a restoration plan
addressing the violation and a sketch grading plan for the current proposal. It
was noted that the applicant had actually encroached on an adjacent property
with his illegal grading. Mr. McGetrick noted that adjacent property was not
included in this application and the applicant and adjacent property owner were
working to resolve the issue. Mr. McGetrick was again advised that the land
alteration violation needed to be addressed.
3
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by March 10, 2004. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On May 15, 1997, the Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing
for the two -phased construction of a mini -warehouse development on this C-3
zoned tract. The phase line split the site roughly in half, north and south. Phase
I, the south half, consisted of 12, one-story buildings and a two-story manager's
office/apartment. Phase II consisted of 12 more, one-story buildings. Areas for
RV and boat storage were shown in each phase. On May 2, 2000, staff
approved a modification to the approved site plan. The phase lines remained as
approved. The modification allowed a more east -west orientation of the
buildings in each phase and a consolidation of the approved square footage into
fewer buildings. Phase I consisted of 9 buildings, eight lying east to west and
one lying parallel to Chenal Parkway. Phase II consisted of 8 buildings lying east
to west. Areas for RV and boat storage were maintained in each phase. Phase
I was constructed. On December 7, 2000, the Commission approved a revision
of the conditional use permit. That revision allowed one of the buildings in
Phase I to be used for conditioned mini -warehouse and realigned the Phase II
buildings. Phase II was approved for 6 buildings to be oriented roughly parallel
with Chenal Parkway. Eight spaces for storage of RV's and boats were shown in
Phase II. Truck rental was added as a permitted use. Eight spaces either for
truck rental or RV and boat storage were shown in Phase I. The building
facades facing Chenal Parkway were required to be brick.
None of the Phase II buildings have been constructed, although the applicant
has done grading on that portion of the site in violation of the City's Land
Alteration Ordinance. An appeal of that Land Alteration Violation notice is a
separate item on this agenda.
The applicant is now requesting approval of a revision to the conditional use
permit. The previously approved Phase I has been indicated as Phases I and II.
These two phases have been completed. The previously approved Phase II (the
north half of the property) is now proposed as Phases III and IV. Phase III is
proposed to consist of 5 mini -warehouse buildings lying east to west. Four of the
buildings are one-story in height. One of the buildings, due to the terrain is two
stories on the south side and one-story on the north side. The top floor is
proposed to be more climate controlled (conditioned) mini -warehouse space.
Twelve spaces of parking for RV and boat storage are shown in Phase III.
Phase IV is now proposed to consist of a single, two-story building lying parallel
to Chenal Parkway, with a parking lot located between the building and the
street. The top floor is proposed to contain climate controlled (conditioned) mini -
warehouse space and the bottom floor is proposed to be divided into tenant
4
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L [Cont._ FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
spaces for various permitted C-3 uses. Due to the terrain, access to the upper
floor will be through the mini -warehouse development at the back and access to
the lower floor will be from the front. There will not be access from the lower
floor to the upper floor. The mini -warehouse buildings will be constructed of
metal. The commercial/office building will have a metal roof and back. The
facade facing Chenal Parkway will be brick and metal. Existing signage will
remain for the mini -warehouse development. A new ground -mounted sign,
meeting Chenal Parkway overlay standards, will be erected in front of the
commercial/office building. Hours of operation for the mini -warehouse
development are 24 hours, 7 days a week. Hours for the commercial/office
building are 7:00 a.m. — 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Site lighting will be
located on the buildings and will be directed downward and inward. Parking lot
lighting for the commercial/office building will be on 15 -foot tall poles and will be
shielded downward and inward to the site. Screening will be installed on the
perimeters of the site.
Although there have been issues related to land alteration, staff continues to be
supportive of the proposed development.
On March 10, 2004, the applicant submitted responses to the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee and reflected in the analysis above. There is no bill of
assurance issue. The uses proposed for occupancy of the lower floor of the
commercial/office building must comply with the parking requirements for a 33
space parking lot. This will assure a mix of low intensity uses. The issue of the
land alteration violation must be resolved prior to the issuance of any permits for
further construction on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Staff Comments and Conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the staff report.
2. All roofing is to be constructed of nonreflective material.
3. All signage must comply with the Chenal Parkway overlay standards.
4. The facade of the commercial/office building must be constructed of brick,
with metal trim only.
5. All site lighting must be shielded downward and into the site.
5
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
6. The land alteration violation issue must be resolved and the site brought into
compliance with the Land Alteration Ordinance prior to the issuance of any
permits for any construction on the site.
7. Uses within the ground floor of the commercialioffice building must comply
with the ordinance established parking requirement for a parking lot with 33
spaces. No restaurant will be permitted on the site.
8. Use of the mini -warehouse buildings, including the climate controlled
buildings, must comply with the Ordinance definition of a "mini -warehouse"
and not be used for bulk storage or warehousing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 25, 2004)
The applicant was present. At 7:00 p.m. the total number of Commissioners
present at the meeting dropped to eight (8). According to Planning Commission
Policy, Chairman Rahman offered a deferral to the April 8, 2004 Agenda to ail
remaining applicants. The Commission had previously determined to make the
informal meeting of April 8, 2004 a public hearing, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
The applicant asked that the application be deferred to the April 8, 2004 Agenda.
A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2004)
The applicant was present. One objector arrived at the meeting after the item
had been acted on by the Commission. Mike Hood, of Public Works, informed
the Commission that the applicant had just provided a grading plan and had not
yet provided a drainage plan. He asked that the item be deferred until the
grading and drainage plans had been submitted and reviewed. There was no
further discussion of the issue.
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 5, 2004 Commission meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Mr. Gene Pfeifer, of 16,300 Cantrell Road, later appeared at the meeting and
asked to make a statement since he was to be out of town on May 6, 2004. The
Chair allowed the statement.
Mr. Pfeifer stated the applicant had violated the City's Land Alteration Ordinance
and, in fact, had graded onto adjacent property that he, Mr. Pfeifer, owns. He
asked the Commission not to approve any amendment to the C.U.P. until the
Land Alteration violation was addressed. Mr. Pfeifer stated the applicant had
also violated the Subdivision's bill of assurance.
A
May 6, 2004
ITEM NO.: L (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5600-C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff informed the Commission that
the grading and drainage plans had been submitted and approved. Mike Hood,
of Public Works, stated there were two issues on this site; the conditional use
permit and the land alteration violation. He stated the land alteration had been
addressed.
Patrick McGetrick, project engineer, stated what was being requested was a
revision to a previously approved conditional use permit. He stated the applicant
had complied with staff requirements and was in the process of correcting the
land alteration violation.
Chris Parker, attorney for adjacent property owner Gene Pfeifer, stated the
applicant had graded a portion of Mr. Pfeifer's property. He stated the previously
approved conditional use permit showed a 45 -foot buffer adjacent to Mr. Pfeifer's
property that had now been removed and the applicant was proposing to replace
it with a 30 -foot buffer.
Chairman Rahman asked if it was not a matter of private litigation. Mr. Parker
responded that it was but he was asking the Commission not to approve any
amendment to the conditional use permit until the issue was resolved.
Commissioner Rector commented that Mr. Pfeifer had recently rezoned his
adjacent property to C-3 and no buffer was now required. He stated that while
he was sympathetic to Mr. Pfeifer's concern, it was not a zoning issue. Mr.
Parker responded by stated the Commission could require a buffer through the
conditional use permit review. He asked the Commission not to reward the
applicant by reducing the buffer below what had been required under the
previous conditional use permit.
Chairman Rahman asked if reducing the buffer would, in fact, not be rewarding
the applicant. Commissioner Rector stated the situation had changed since Mr.
Pfeifer had rezoned his property. Commissioner Rector stated he was not in
favor of violating City Ordinances but the applicant had developed an approved
remediation plan.
There was a brief discussion of the issue of penalizing or rewarding the
applicant.
Penny Collins Choate, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant had done
everything the City had asked of him. She stated there was a private lawsuit
involving the applicant and Mr. Pfeifer and the Commission hearing was not the
proper forum to discuss that issue.
There was a brief discussion of the site plan.
A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff
recommendations and comments. The motion was approved by a vote of
8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent.
7