Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFAX to Hazel May 2000 with item:ity of Little Rock apartment of Planning and Development 23 West Markham ittle Rock Arkanaaa 722(31.1334 FAX COVER SHEET DATE : �� d TO :�C �PiL COMPANY:t5 FAX NO . 7 a 4-7 - 5� PHONE NO. FROM: VV Cu.•-, "'t r-1 DEPARTMENT: FAX NO.:_ (501) 371-6863 PHONE NO .: )5c l " �;l I TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: l I COMMENTS:6:e�i CC &,t-� May 11, 2000 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6829 NAME: Mini -storages at Chenal - Short -Form PD -C LOCATION: West side of Champlin Drive, south of Rahling Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Deltic Timber Corporation #7 Chenal Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72211 White-Daters and Associates 401 S. Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: 0-2/0-3/C-1 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FT. NEW STREET: 0 General Office, Neighborhood Commercial Mini -warehouse Development None requested. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from 0-2/ 0-3/C-1 to PD -C to allow for development of a mini - warehouse complex. The proposed site plan shows a total of eight (8) buildings with a total area of 72,600 square foot. A manager's office and apartment is shown in Building A. Two (2) access points are proposed from Champlin Drive. These drives will be gated entrances. There is a small parking area (5 spaces) on the south side of Building A. A ground -mounted sign is shown at each entrance drive. The applicant also proposes an 8 foot screening fence around the perimeter of the site. The applicant has noted that the typical building height will be as follows: Buildings A and B - 19 feet Buildings C thru H - 8.5 feet May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6829 The applicant has noted that the roofs of the structures will be constructed of a nonreflective material. Also, the building facades will have an earth -tone color. The applicant has noted that the hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There is also a land use plan amendment application for this property (Item 11.1 on this agenda) . B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and brush -covered. The property slopes generally to the south from Rahling Road. There is a multifamily development to the east across Champlin Drive, with undeveloped property to the north at the southwest corner of Champlin Dr. and Rahling Rd. There is a mixture of commercial, office and residential zoning along Rahling in this area. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the south and undeveloped 0-2 zoned property to the west. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: There was no established neighborhood association to notify. As of this writing, staff has received several calls in opposition to the proposed project. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Champlin Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. (Dedicate right-of-way to property line.) 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Show driveway location on opposite side of Champlin Drive. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. FA May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6829 7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 8. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) will be required with Building Permit. 9. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) will be required with building permit. 10. Contact the ADEQ for approval before start of work. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. AP&L: No Comment. ARK.LA: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per city code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 regarding turning radii. County Plannin : No Comment received. CATA: No Comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this location. The property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and the zoning request is for a Planned Development -Commercial for the construction of mini -warehouses. This case is the subject of a Land Use Plan amendment on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan contained the commercial development goal objective of promoting 3 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6829 commercial and office development that enhances the primarily residential nature of the community. The plan also contained an action statement calling for the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts (PZD's) to influence more neighborhood friendly and better quality developments. Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. G. ANALYSIS: Staff met with the applicant on April 26, 2000 to discuss the project. The applicant has informed staff that a revised site plan with substantial changes will be submitted, in response to the staff comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting. However, the revised plan could not be submitted to staff for review prior to this writing. Staff will work with the applicant in reviewing the revised plan and report to the Commission and present a recommendation at the public hearing. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommendation will be presented at the public hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 20, 2000) Tim Daters was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the PD -C, noting that additional information was needed. Mr. Daters noted no problems with the Planning Staff comments or Public Works requirements. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forwarded the PD -C to the full Commission for resolution. Ell ♦ auu�� i•.+r tki 0 G 14 i UJC 4m I cs G,G y Area Zoning Case # Z-6829 N WEST SIDE OF CHANTLIN DRIVE, AND RAHLING ROAD Cr: 42.06 TRS: T2NR14M6 PD. 19 Ward 5 0 200 400 Feet � Item # 11 ©a RN Y �T Land Use SF SF Case # Zr6829 N WEST SIDE OF CHAMPLIN DRIVE, AND SOUTH SIDE OF RAHLING ROAD CT: 42.06 TRS: T2NR14W36 0 200 400 Feet PD 19 Ward- 5 Item # I I GROUND MOUNTED FROP05ED 51GN 5' 51DEWALK`\ RETAINING WALL WHERE REQUIRED BY GRADES DU MADTEK PROPOSED PAVEMENT 8' PRIVACY_ FENCE TRS T1 N R14W36 CT 42.06 pp 19 WARD 5 l PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP05ED BUILDING TYP. � 251.68 SHORT FORM PD -C Z-6829 WEST 51DE OF CHAMPLIN DRIVE SOUTH 51DE OF RAHLING ROAD MANAGERS OFFICE & APPARTMENT - GROUND - MOUNTED 51GN GATED ENTRANCE DEFENCEIVE us GATES 0 LD PROP05ED PAVEMENT 8' PRIVACY - FENCE PROPO5ED LAN05CAPING ITEM NO. 11 NORTH GILL ELROD RAGON OwEN SKn NER & SHERMAN, P. A. ATTORNEYS W.W. ELROD II, P.A. JOHN P. GILL DRAKE MANN MARE -B. MILLER, RA CHARLES C. OWEN, P.A. HEARTsILL RAGON III, P.A. W. BRADFORD SHERMAN H. EDWARD SKINNER, P.A. Little Rock City Planning Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 May 1, 2000 JUDY P. McNaL CHRssroPHER L. TRAvis ROGER H. Fn7.GIBBON, JR. JOHN A. FOGLEMAN, OF COUNSEL Re: Zoning and Land Use Plan Amendment Applications Planning Commission Case # Z-6829 Dear Commissioners: www.gW-law.com Our law firm represents L&W Development, LLC, which owns and operates Wellington Village Self Storage ("Wellington"), and Guardsmart Corporation, which owns and operates Guardsmart Self Storage ("Guardsmart"). Wellington and Guardsmart oppose the granting the subject applications to amend the City of Little Rock Land Use Plan and to re -zone property on Champlin Road in Little Rock (the "Property") from an 0-3 zoning classification to a planned commercial district ("PCD") for miniwarehouses. Wellington is located on Wellington Hills Road, approximately 3,000 feet from the Property. Guardsmart is located on Chenal Parkway, just north of the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10. These two companies are engaged in the miniwarehouse business and oppose the over- development of commercial tracts in the area to allow more miniwarehouses when the existing lands zoned for that purpose are not fully utilized. The Commission should deny the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment application because the proposed amendment does not conform with the Land Use Plan for the Property. According to the Land Use Plan, the Commission has determined that the Property should be used for offices. The Property on the west is a large undeveloped office area, and immediately east is an upscale apartment complex. The land northeast of the Property is being developed as a convenience store. Immediately north of the Property is an undeveloped light commercial district, while an undeveloped multi -family tract lies to the south. Because there is no expanding commercial use in the area around the Property, a PCD zoning for the Property is improper at this time. The Land Use Plan should not be amended to suit 3801 TCBY Tower, Capitol and Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone (501) 376-3800 Telefax (501) 372-3359 Little Rock City Planning Commission Page 2 May 1, 2000 the needs of each developer. The Land Use Plan is developed and adopted to guide the Commission and the citizens of Little Rock in their present development of the City. My clients understand that flexibility must exist for Little Rock to grow, but if the Land Use Plan may be amended on other than a land use planning basis, it means nothing. The Commission should also deny the proposed zoning amendment application because the Property is not suitable at this time for a PCD. The Commission, when considering a PCD according to Ordinance No. 36-451, must assure that the proposed development would not "have a negative effect on the future development of the area." The Commission in this instance must be mindful of the economic impact of its actions. Ordinance 36-451(d)(5) states that the Commission must encourage the "more efficient and economic arrangement of varied land use" in approving PCD's. If the Commission approves these applications, the Commission will have authorized two miniwarehouses approximately 3,000 feet from each other. The Commission should deny the applications because that situation cannot be described as "efficient and economic" land use. The miniwarehouse needs of the community, moreover, are being well met in this area. Miniwarehouse developers utilize two standards in their development decisions: plan on a five -mile radius for customer draw, and assume each citizen will use, on average, three (3) square feet of storage space. Using these two standards, there are approximately 68,056 people living within a five -mile radius of the Property and these people require 204,168 square feet of storage space. After conducting a market study, my clients report that there are now approximately 273,080 square feet of storage existing space in within that five -mile radius. That means that right now there are about 68,912 empty feet of storage space within a five -mile radius of the Property. Wellington has rented 103 of its 678 constructed units, and operates at a sixteen percent (16%) occupancy rate. Guardsmart operates 212 units and has only utilized twenty-two percent (22%) of its available land capacity, and, after two years, is still not full. My clients argue that, with the current zoning and expansion capabilities in the area, there is unmet demand within the draw area of the Property, and, thus a re -zoning to allow another miniwarehouse at this time does not make economic sense. The Commission should consider these economic conditions and deny these applications. The Commission must deny applications that have a "negative effect upon the future development of the area." If a miniwarehouse is built only 3,000 feet from Wellington, one of those businesses will likely fail. Guardsmart is only about_ two miles away, and the proposed P ADOCUMEN'RC LnL&W\ZONE.L?R Little Rock City Planning Commission Page 3 May 1, 2000 miniwarehouse would adversely effect it as well. In the event that the proposed miniwarehouse, Wellington, or Guardsmart fail, the Commission, by granting these applications, will have violated the purpose of the Ordinance by creating a prospect for abandoned buildings. In fact, the Commission may well have caused a negative effect upon the future development of the area. To avoid that negative effect, the Commission should deny these applications. On behalf of my clients, thank you for the opportunity to express their views regarding these applications. Please feel free to contact me if any of you have gt.et'tiuns or desire farlhter information. Mr Fred Langford with Wellington or Mr. Chris Thornton with Guardsmark will follow up with a phone call in a few days to answer any questions that you may have. Sincerel , John P. Gill PADOCUMENT\CLT\L& W\ZONE.LTR aRECEIVED MAY 17000 BY: 3 P-'-S'aL7— P ADOC UM ENnC LnL& W\ZON E. LTR