Loading...
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