Loading...
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