HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1382 Staff AnalysisDecember 19, 2002
ITEM NO.: C.1
NAME: Yelenich Long -form PCD
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
LOCATION: 2000 Block of South University Avenue; on the West side
DEVELOPER:
Marc Yelenich
110 South Shore Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 10+ Acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
ENGINEER -
ETC Engineers
1510 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED USE: Mini -warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses)
VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3, with conditions,
for this site. The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping center
at this location. The applicant later Withdrew the request and the property remained
zoned R-2, Single-family.
The Planning Commission later reviewed an application for the placement of non-
traditional multi -family housing on this site on February 14, 2002. The proposed
development included dormitory style housing, four bedrooms sharing a common
kitchen and living area. The proposal included seven rows of structures, each separate
buildings, all three stories in height, all having a six car garage on the first level and two
levels of living area above. There were to be 43 buildings total. A building included
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
eight bedroom facilities, four on the second level and four on the third level. The levels
each had four bedrooms and a separate bath, which could be secured, and were to
share a common open area and kitchen facility. The applicant proposed, in addition to
the garage parking spaces, an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the
perimeter of the property.
The applicant withdrew the proposal after receiving an abundance of neighborhood
opposition to the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision as a part of the application. On Lot
1, the applicant proposes the placement of 90,000 square feet of self -storage,
mini -warehouse. The facility will be buffered by an undisturbed and terraced
area, with ground cover between retaining walls. The applicant is proposing a
2-story 2,400 square foot resident manager's office as a part of the development.
The units will be ground level single story units. Approximately 25% of the units
will be climate controlled units. The applicant is proposing a sign located at the
entrance adjacent to South University Avenue. The sign is proposed to be a
monument style sign and be approximately 5-foot by 10-foot or 50-square feet in
area and have a time and temperature LED reader board. The applicant
proposes to operate a truck rental leasing service from the mini -warehouse office
building.
Lot 2 will consist of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3 uses being
requested. There will be approximately 10 individual business bays within the
development, however, the interior walls will be moveable to accommodate
various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants. The
applicant is requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot as well.
The sign will be located near the driveway at be approximately 10-feet by 15-feet
or 150 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing a LED reader board as
part of the signage. The applicant has indicated the building fagade will have
sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site, which has been previously graded and
somewhat leveled. The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree covered
with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension Service
Center. Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as check
cashing, liquor store and restaurants. Uses to the south and west of the site are
single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O' Woods neighborhoods.
K
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this
location. Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the north
at Boyle Park Road. Currently there are plans to widen South University Avenue.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received several phone calls both in support and
opposition of the proposal. The applicant has met with the Neighborhood
Associations and the area residents prior to submission of his application.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site and the Broadmoore, the University Park, the Oak Forest,
the Point O' Woods, the Curran Conway and the 25 residents who signed in at an
information meeting held September 23, 2002 were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required
as indicated on the plans.
2. Provide design of street conforming to Master Street Plan. Construct one-half
street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development. This requirement will be waived if the bids have been opened
for the planned University widening project prior to approval of the building
permit. No new median cuts are allowed on University.
3. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies. to this property as indicated on the
plans.
5. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6. A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c) & (d). Hillside cuts
must comply with the land alteration ordinance including but not limited to a
15-foot maximum cut between benches (the plan shows 17'). Cuts over 10-
feet vertical must be faced with architectural stone.
3
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: CA (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Enteray: No comment received.
ARKLA: No comment received.
Southwestern Bell: A 10-foot utility easement along the north, west and south
property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be required.
Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment, received.
CATA: Site is located on Bus Route #17, #17A and #21 and has no effect on
bus radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial Development to allow a mini -storage development and
retail shopping.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda. (Item # 10 File No. LU02-10-06)
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landscape Issues: The proposed land use buffer along the northern and
southern perimeters are required to have an undisturbed average width of
twenty-one (21) feet. This takes into consideration the transfer allowed for the
wide buffer proposed along the western perimeter. The full undisturbed width
required without this transfer credit is twenty-eight (28) feet. The proposed
undisturbed buffer width along the southern perimeter is ten (10) feet.
4
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISIO
ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
A six (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, southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide copies of
an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 10, 2002)
Mr. Mark Yelenich was present representing the application. Staff presented the
proposed development indicating additional information needed on the site plan.
Staff questioned if there was to be any outdoor storage, boats, campers, etc.
Staff also requested details of the proposed signage. Staff requested the days
and hours of operation and the estimated number of bays for the retail center.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to pay improvement .cost for the
widening of South University Avenue if a building permit were obtained prior to
the letting of the bid on the publicly financed widening project. Staff stated there
would not be any additional median cuts allowed on South University Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated at least 70% of the buffer
was to remain undisturbed. Staff stated the southern land use buffer should
maintain an average width of 21 feet.
After the discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated
there will be no outdoor storage on the site (no boats, campers, etc.) and has
indicated the dumpster location with the proper screening. The applicant has
also indicated the project will be built in three phases. Phase I will consist of
construction of the resident managers/office building and the construction of the
two mini -storage buildings, which run east and west. Phases II and III will
consist of the construction of the two additional mini -warehouse buildings and the
construction of the retail building. The applicant has indicated he will not
construct the retail center until he is 50% pre -leased. He has indicated he will
5
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: CA (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
not construct the additional mini -warehouse buildings until Phase I of the mini -
warehouse is 70% leased.
The applicant has requested a 2-foot by 10-foot sign located adjacent to the mini -
warehouse development. He is requesting the sign be allowed LED time and
temperature display within the sign area. The signage for the commercial center
is proposed as a monument sign 3-feet by 10-feet sign area with a LED reader
board. The applicant also proposes to park a 16-foot moving van with an
advertising logo on the side adjacent to the street. The van will be made
available to persons renting the"mini-warehouse units. Staff is not supportive of
the placement of the moving van on the site near the street. Staff feels (although
not an actual sign) it will have the appearance of a billboard.
The applicant proposes the self -storage hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday and
closed on Sunday. The gate hours are proposed to be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm
7 days per week. For an additional fee the applicant has indicated tenants would
have 24-hour access to the site. The intent is not to collect an additional income
but to limit the number of tenants entering after normal gate hours. The applicant
has stated the retail building will have approximately 10 different businesses and
their hours of operation may vary. Staff is not supportive of not limiting the hours
of operation on this site and leaving the possibility of 24-hour operations open to
a potential user.
The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental/leasing office (Penske Truck
Rental) from the site as well. The applicant has requested two spaces be
designated as truck parking. He has stated the site would not have more than
two truck on the site at a time but there were times when there would not be any
trucks on the site. Staff is not supportive of this request.
The applicant proposes a resident manager on -site for the mini -warehouse
development. The development will consist of a two (2) story 30x40-foot
structure to act as both the office/retail sales area/break-room with the living
quarters upstairs.
The applicant proposes the office/residence to have either standing seam metal
or asphalt shingle roofing material with a 20-foot eave height; the roof will be
constructed on a 6 on 12 pitch. The self storage buildings are proposed with
standing seam galvanized metal roof with an eve height of 10.5 feet; the roof will
have a '/4 on 12 pitch and will not be colored. Staff recommends the roofs be
constructed of non -reflective materials to lessen the heat vapors and to avoid any
potential impacts to surrounding neighbors. The applicant proposes the retail
center to be either a standing seam or screw down metal roof with a front eave
height of 21-feet. There will be a parapet on the front of the building, which
R
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
would add an additional 9-feet to the finished building height. The maximum
building height in C-3 zoning district is 35-feet, consistent with the applicant's
proposal.
The applicant has indicated undisturbed areas to the north, south and west
property lines consistent with the land use buffer requirements. The applicant
has also indicated a cut and two (2) benches in 10-foot intervals along the
western boundary to eliminate concerns of the Land Alteration Ordinance. The
applicant is proposing riprap along these benches, which from an engineering
standpoint is a workable alternative. From a design standpoint it is not a
workable alternative. Staff is not supportive of the request to place riprap along
the entire area. Staff feels the applicant should install a split faced block wall
along the top terrace, which will be visible from the street and the riprap
treatment along the lower terrace.
Although Staff has some concerns with the proposed development, the
workability of retail on South University Avenue without a median break, Staff is
inclined to support the proposed development. The addition of mini -warehouse
to this site, Staff feels is a viable development approach. Typically mini -
warehouse development is a low traffic generator, destination bound
development and the hours of operation are not typically intrusive to the
neighbors. Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to do too much on the site.
Staff cannot support the unlimited hours of operation for the retail or the mini -
warehouse center. Staff feels the development should be limited to hours of
operation consistent with development in the area.
Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the applicant's truck to be parked
adjacent to South University Avenue and act as additional signage. Staff also
does not support allowing the applicant to operate a truck rental business from
the site. Once again Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to conduct to many
activities on this site.
Staff cannot support the proposed treatment of the slope on the rear (western
boundary) of the site. Staff would recommend the applicant install an
architectural wall on the top portion of the sloped area and then the riprap along
the lower tier. Even though motorists are traveling at a somewhat higher rate of
speed through the area, the rock will be visible from the street and the parking
lot. Staff feels the addition of the block wall will enhance the development adding
to the design theme the applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue.
VA
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: CA (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
Staff is in support of the concept to the proposed development. Staff feels
should the applicant revise his application to include the recommendations
included above and limit the number of uses proposed on the site after which
Staff could possible support the proposed development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 31, 2002)
Mr. Marc Yelenich was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9) Planning Commissioners were
present. She stated there were only six (6) Commissioners present.
Mr. Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the November 14, 2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion. A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote 'of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 2002)
Mr. Marc Yelenich was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9) Planning Commissioners were
present. He stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present.
Mr. Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the December 19, 2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion. A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 19, 2002)
Mr. Marc Yelenich was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the development
plan as filed. Staff stated they were supportive of the concept to allow a mini -
warehouse and commercial building to develop on the site but there were concerns with
the hours of operation of the mini -warehouse, the placement of a truck rental business
on the site, the placement of the applicant's moving van adjacent to South University
Avenue and the treatment of the cut located on the western portion of the property.
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: CA (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
Staff stated the applicant had indicated he would comply with the Land Alteration
Ordinance. Staff stated they felt the placement of a split face block wall was more
appropriate in this location for aesthetic reasons. Staff stated since the request was a
rezoning to a planned development the request was not out of line. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated he would construct a quality development. Staff stated in their
opinion meeting the minimum requirements of the ordinance did not constitute a quality
development.
Mr. Yelenich presented his proposed development plan to the Commission indicating he
was agreeable to not have the ancillary service of a truck rental business on the site.
He also stated he was willing to locate his companies moving van to the rear of the site
behind the commercial building.
Mr. Yelenich requested the hours of operation for the mini -warehouse to remain at 24-
hour access. He stated currently at his other two (2) locations only ten (10) percent of
the customers opted for the 24-hour access and of that only five (5) percent accessed
the site after the gates were closed at 10:00 pm. He stated based on a survey of the
yellow pages over fifty (50) percent of the current facilities offer this service. He stated
some customers who used this service, such as pharmaceutical representatives or
doctors, needed to access their storage unit after hours when they were leaving town
early to call on customers.
Mr. Yelenich stated he had also agreed to place non -reflective roofs on the units as
requested by Staff because he also felt this was a good idea. He stated he was willing
to assist the city with reducing heat effect caused by reflective roofs.
Mr. Yelenich stated with regard to the treatment of the slope he was willing to place the
split faced block wall on the top terrace if and where required. He stated he was no
longer requesting rip -rap on the lower terrace. He stated a geo-technical engineer had
stated the slope appeared that it would maintain without terracing the cut. Mr. Yelenich
stated he was willing to install an erosion control mat and hydro seed creeping love
grass on both terrace areas, which in his opinion, would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Maury Mitchell spoke in support of the proposed development. He stated the
approval of the development would only add to the revitalization efforts of South
University Avenue. He stated the proposed use would not generate a large amount of
additional traffic since mini -warehouse was typically a low generator of traffic.
Mr. Arthur Connerly spoke in support of the proposed development. He stated with the
proposed development the site would be fenced thus adding additional security to the
adjacent residences.
Ms. Andrea Hooten spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated she
was the President of the Broadmoore Neighborhood Association and the Association
was not in support of the proposed development. She stated the concern was related to
9
December 19, 2002
SUBDIVISIO
EM NO.: C.1 (C
FILE NO.: Z-4644-B
the unregulated storage of materials on the site and the possible contamination of the
air and/or ground and stormwater. She stated the neighborhood also had concerns with
allowing 24-hour access to the site. She stated this would only invite an element of
crime to the neighborhood.
She stated the site did not have a median break. She stated this would cause motorist
to make u-turns south of the site at the traffic light at the U of A Cooperative Extension
Service building intersection or to "cut -through" the neighborhood. She stated the
applicant had stated there would be an estimated 50 cars per day visiting the site. She
stated this was a significant number of cars which would be exiting the site and looking
for avenues to travel north. She stated without the median break there were concerns
that the site would not draw stable businesses. She stated this would not enhance the
redevelopment of South University Avenue but hinder the redevelopment with increased
business vacancies.
Ms. Anne Wasson chose not to address the Commission.
There was limited discussion concerning the applicant's revision to his application and
the treatment of the western slope. The applicant indicated he would revise his
application to limit the hours of operation of the retail business to 12:00 midnight, to limit
the number of occupants who had 24-hour access to the mini -warehouse to 10 percent
of the customers, to not allow the truck rental business as an ancillary service and to
place his moving van behind the commercial building away from South University
Avenue.
Mr. Yelenich stated he was willing to comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance. He
stated he was not willing to install a split faced block wall on the upper terrace for the
entire length of the western cut only for aesthetic reasons. He stated the placement of
the block would cost an estimated $150,000, which would place the development cost
to high to receive a return on his investment and put the project out of reach. He stated
he was willing to place split faced block if and where needed and in other locations to
place a erosion control matting and hydro seed creeping love grass on both terraces.
There was a motion to accept Mr. Yelenich's proposal as amended. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent.
10