The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-1041 Staff AnalysisNovember 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1041 NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Riverfront Dr. and Jessie Dr. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: JOHN HALEY FRED CHILCOTE RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE LLC BCCGBN ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS 875 Union Bldg. 303 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-1171 376-6671 AREA: 2.91 ACRES ZONING• I-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES RE VESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage None The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility on a 2.91 acre site. The proposed development involves the construction of 3 buildings totaling 48,800 square feet of floor area. A manager's office and apartment are included within one of the buildings. One access point, off Jessie Rd., is proposed, and a gate at this access point is to be locked after hours. Six parking spaces are provide, 2 at the west end of each of the three buildings. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of a site plan by the Planning Commission is requested for the Riverdale Mini -Storage facility. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The street to the west is Riverfront Dr., a public street; however, the street from which access is taken, Jessie Dr., is an existing private street. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, with I-3 zoned land to the east and south. Abutting the site to the north is 0-2 zoned land, and across Riverfront Dr. is C-3 land. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1041 C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comment that: 1) a sidewalk will be required along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the site, or payment of "in -lieu" for the Parks Department's planned walk must be made; 2) the minimum finish floor elevations for this property must be at least 257.2 feet M.S.L.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required, and a development permit will be required; and, 3) stormwater detention and boundary survey information Will be required. Water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. The fire hydrant shown to be relocated and the "assumed" water main are not existing in this area. The site is occupying one lot and part of another. The site must be replatted. Wastewater reports that they were unable to determine the location of the site, and are therefore unable to comment at this time. Wastewater must be contacted for further information. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that they will require a 15 foot easement along the south boundary of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments have not been received. The Fire Department will require additional fire hydrants for this site. Landscape review comments that the proposal submitted drops below the 12 foot width buffer requirement along the northern perimeter and the 27 foot width requirement along the eastern side. The minimum requirements are 8 feet and 18 feet respectively. The width provided is 6 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and eastern property lines. D. ISSUES LE AL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The legal description of the site indicates that the proposed development occupies one lot and a portion of a another. The remainder of the partial lot has been developed. Development of this facility must include replatting of the site to include the full and partial lots. It must be noted, however, that when the partial lot is combined with the full lot in a replat, the remaining K November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-104_I portion of the partial lot (the part of the lot which has been developed) must meet ordinance standards; a substandard lot can not be created. The site plan is deficient in landscaping are to be shown. handicap parking spaces, are t hydrants are to be located. T utilities, indicating the line verified with the utilities a 1. that the areas set aside for Parking spaces, including o be shown. On -site fire he availability of public size and location are to be Provision with the Fire Department must be made for a gate which will be locked. E. ANALYSIS• Assuming that the replatting issue can be accomplished, there are only minor deficiencies remaining, and it is anticipated that these deficiencies can be remedied. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant correcting the noted deficiencies. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Fred Chilcote, the architect on the project, was present. Mr. Chilcote reviewed the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline, and the Committee members discussed these deficiencies with staff and Mr. Chilcote. The Public Works staff discussed the sidewalk issue or, alternatively, the payment of the "in - lieu" fee for the Parks Department's Riverfront walk program. The landscaping issue was discussed with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff. Mr. Chilcote related that the needed corrections would be made. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The item was proposed to be included on the Consent Agenda for approval; however, Commissioner Walker asked for clarification on the standards to be imposed for improvements on the Jessie Dr. frontage of the site, and the item was placed on the regular agenda. Commissioner Walker related that Jessie Dr. is a private street, but indicated that Jessie Dr. does not meet City street standards. There are no curbs and gutters along the street, and the street does not appear to comply with street standards for topography and access. He voiced his objection to an applicant 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION STEM NO.: 15 [Continued] _-- FILE NO.: S 1041 not being required to make improvements on a private street as they would along a public street frontage. David Scherer, representing the Public Works Department, stated that Jessie Dr. is considered a private driveway to the businesses which take their access from it. Mr. John Haley, the applicant, indicated that all concerns raised by staff have been addressed. He said that the access to the mini -storage facility is from an internal drive -parking area, and that the access point is at the west end of the internal driveway. This, he said, would keep whatever traffic that comes to the mini -storage facility out of the internal parking area for the businesses which surround the parking area along Jessie Dr. Mr. Walker reiterated that Jessie Dr. is substandard; that the mini -storage facility will bring an increase of occasional traffic to the area; and that the private street in inadequate. He complained that the right-of-way along the Riverfront Dr. frontage is unkept. He stated that an apron which meets City standards should be required to extend from Riverfront Dr. to the applicant's property line. He said that the entrance point to the facility does not provide any stacking space for vehicles entering the property. He said that the chain link fence which is proposed to surround the project is offensive. He pointed out that the north and west frontages of the property should have opaque screening in order to comply with the Landscape Ordinance provisions. Mr. Haley responded that there is a 50-80 foot wide drainage easement which lies along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the property, and that this drainage easement is a "swampy abomination". He said that if the City would give them the authorization, they would clean up the area, and would construct the necessary curbing on Riverside Dr. Since the area is outside the limits of their property, however, they cannot make any improvements to the area. Commissioner Walker stated that the levy along the north side of the site is an adequate substitute for the buffers along the north side of the property; however, there remains a need to buffer the west frontage of the property. Because, he said, Riverfront Dr. is higher in elevation than the site, buffering of the use area is made more difficult. Buffering, he added, could be increased if the buildings had been oriented differently so that the buildings themselves provided screening, but, he conceded, he was unsure that the Commission on a Site Plan Review issue has the authority to impose these types of design requirements on the project. Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, responded that the Landscape Ordinance permits natural buffers, so that, 4 November 29, 1994 SU$nzvlSIO�v ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: S--1041 indeed, the levee can meet the buffer requirements. He said that, when the plans are submitted for Building Permit review, landscaping will be required along the internal lot line along the Jessie Rd. frontage of the site, and that along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the site, an opaque screen will be required. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention. 5