Z-5589 Staff AnalysisAugust' li, '1992
ITEM NO.• 8 FILE NO.: 7-55$9
NAME•
LOCATION:
Southwest Little Rock Community
Complex - Conditional Use Permit
South side of Baseline Road at
Oman Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/Parks
Department by Mark Webre
PROPOSAL:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Conditional Use Permit to allow
public facilities and recreational
complex.
The south side of Baseline Road between Dailey Drive and
St. Theresa's School.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposal filed is a neighborhood oriented recreational
and services facility. The various elements of the plan
relate to area needs.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The plan incorporates a primary drive and access system
which will serve the entire site, the various uses and
parking. Roadways are proposed at a workable dimension.
The parking is generally concentrated in the southwest
quadrant, but two satellite areas serve the soccer field and
possible library site.
4. screening and Buffers
The project proposes a sixty (60) foot undisturbed buffer
on the east, south and west property lines. The buffer
ordinance would not require a specific buffer.
5. City Engineer Comments
Construct a 60 foot radius on the southwest corner of the
entrance at Baseline.
1
IN-
August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE Na.: Z-5589
6. Analysis
Staff review reveals the following issues for resolution:
1. The Master Street Plan requires the extension of Warren
Drive from the south to Dailey Drive and then to
Baseline Road. The Master Street Plan requires 60 feet
of right-of-way with 36 feet of pavement.
2. Denham and Senate Drives which terminate at the east
boundary should be dealt with for cul-de-sac or
turnaround device and consideration given to sidewalk
ties to the park.
3. The buffer area around the perimeter should be marked
on the site to protect against intrusion during
construction.
4. A lighting plan is required for court areas.
5. Several driveway intersections require more study to
assure safety.
6. The soccer field parking may need to be enlarged,
25 spaces appear to be too few.
7. Dumpster areas, loading and service facilities should
be noted on plan.
8. Provide phasing plan.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to resolving
the issues noted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 23, 1992)
The Committee discussed the plan at length. All of the points
raised by staff were considered and the applicant agreed to
address each prior to the public hearing.
The only issue without immediate resolution is the Warren Drive
extension. The applicant, staff and Public Works will work
toward a solution that will at least protect the right-of-way.
2
' August 11, 1992
' SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE NO.: Z-5589
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 11, 1992)
Richard Wood of staff offered the staff recommendation and a
brief overview of the proposal. He indicated that there was one
remaining item for resolution which caused this request to be
placed on the regular agenda, that item being the determination
of need for the Warren Drive collector street through the site.
Wood reported that should the Commission recommend the
termination of the Master Street Plan street to the south of this
project, the Planning staff would return shortly with a Master
Street Plan amendment to accomplish the change. The amendment
would terminate the street on the south end at a creek near
Yarberry Lane, and terminate Warren Road as a collector at
Fairfield Drive to the south of this site.
The Chairman. Mr. McDaniel, then offered comments on the project.
He pointed out that this was a 1987 city bond project to be
constructed with funds from this bond issue. Chairman McDaniel
then pointed out there were only two persons in attendance with
concerns about the application. These persons were Mr. and
Mrs. McClendon, residents of the northwest corner at Fairfield
Drive and Warren Road.
Richard Wood of staff asked if the Commission would like to hear
a presentation from the applicant, Mr. Mark Weber from Parks.
The Chairman asked that Mr. Weber come forward and make his
presentation prior to hearing from the McClendons. Mr. Weber
presented a brief overview of the Parks' proposal. Specifically,
he pointed out the location of the new Southwest police
substation, in the middle of the project. He pointed out that
there were several unique features to this park. He stated his
department felt like the location of the police department
granted a higher level of security for users of the park because
it would increase its activity level.
Mr. Weber reported Parks Department was very excited in the
development of this park and had been busy doing their design.
They were not aware of the Master Street Plan issue, but it did
pass through an important element of the project.
Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, asked a question of the
Commission and of the applicant. His question was whether there
was a short stem of street extending northward from Fairfield
Drive to the boundary of the park. Staff pointed out there was a
dedicated right-of-way and pavement that terminates at the south
park boundary. This would have been the connection for the
collector extended westward to Dailey Road. The question posed
is whether there would be a barricade placed at the end of the
street. Information presented indicated there is currently a
3
T)�Ugu
st 11, 1992
r
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5589
metal barrier at the end of the street. However, the Parks
Department proposes the construction of a fence across the
right-of-way. This would connect existing fences by private
property owners, however, the fence would allow passage by
pedestrians and bicycles for an entry to the park.
The Chairman then asked the McClendons, adjacent property owners
to come forward and present their comments. Mr. McClendon
pointed out that they were recent new residents to the area.
They were unaware of the bond project and the park proposal;
however, they were not opposed to the efforts of the Parks
Department in creation of the park. Their concerns had to deal
primarily with'the use of the extension of Warren Drive to the
south boundary of the park and future use for parking and other
activities. They were also concerned about vehicle or physical
access to the park which might be generated in front of their
residence. At this point, there was an extended conversation
much of which was not recorded by staff. This conversation dealt
primarily with the McClendons' concern about users of the bicycle
trail and the pedestrians' foot paths across their lawn.
Mr. McClendon pointed out that there was a drainage problem on
their immediate northeast corner adjacent to the park and they
would request that some review be made of that circumstance in
connection with the development of the park. Mrs. McClendon
indicated the location of this water was the rear area of the
barricade at the north unit of Warren Road.
The staff then asked for clarification of the request for fence
to the rear of the McClendons' property. Would the Commission
accept the idea of requiring a fence along the east and south
boundaries adjacent to all residential. The McClendons then
responded by stating their interest was in providing for fencing
at the end of the street right-of-way. They also pointed out
that there were fences behind almost all of the residences
adjacent to the park. The resolution was that there is to be
no automobile entrance off Warren Drive, simply, a pedestrian
access through a fence proposed by Parks. The McClendons'
concern was that if there were vehicular access this might hinder
their ability to enter or exit their driveway, which is adjacent
to the end of the street. The discussion then moved to the area
of policing of several streets that dead-end at the park
boundary. Mark Weber pointed out it was his belief that with
proper policing, which means signage and other activities, it
will be possible to control where people park to access the
facility. The problems such as the McClendons pointed out could
be controlled.
The discussion then moved to the provision for screening and
buffering of the facility. Richard Wood of staff pointed out
that there was a 60 foot undisturbed green area proposed along
4
1
r
I August 11, 1992
SUBDIVISION
i
ITEM NO.: 8 Continued FILE NO.; Z-5589
the boundary of the park in order to leave the current
-circumstance of undeveloped wooded area adjacent to the
residential. Commissioner Putnam then raised a question as to
how we would accomplish retaining a 60 foot undisturbed strip,
while at the same time allowing pedestrian access. Mark Weber
pointed out that the park plan proposed walking or bicycle trails
through the area to tie all three of the dead-end streets to the
facilities in the park.
Mrs. McClendon then raised the question again as to who would
deal with the drainage issue. Richard Wood of staff pointed out
that the park proposal includes a pond or detention area in the
southeast quadrant of the development. However, this may or may
not have any effect upon the water issue at the end of Warren
Road. Wood suggested that this was an issue properly directed to
Public Works for their review and working with Parks in
developing the area. Mark Weber pointed out that although he
might not be in a position to specifically authorize a resolution
of the McClendons' problem, he would like to work with them
through his department head to see if there is some resolution
the park's development could provide.
Chairman McDaniel then raised a question as to whether or not
there were drainage funds left in the 1987 bond issue budget.
It was his feeling that there was and a substantial dollar
amount committed for drainage in the Cloverdale area. He felt
that some review of that account should be made to determine if
those monies could perhaps be utilized in this circumstance.
Commissioner Oleson then raised a question as to whether the plan
now reflects all of the various issues that were raised such as
the dumpster sites, lighting, etc. Staff responded by saying at
this time the plan has not been totally revised, but staff would
work with Parks to ensure the final plan would illustrate these
various issues. Commissioner Oleson then wanted to know whether
a vote on the application at this time would include those
several changes to be made. Richard Wood responded by saying
that those are conditions of approval to be included in the
action of the Commission.
The Chairman then called for a vote on the item as recommended by
staff. The vote on the Chairman's request was 9 ayes, 0 nays and
2 absent. The Conditional Use Permit was approved unanimously.
5