Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3448 Staff AnalysisFebruary 26, 1980 Item No. 6 - Z-3448 - Conditional Use Permit Owner: Arkansas State Hospital Applicant: Little Rock Water Works Request: Permission to locate a 1,000,000 gallon water storage tank Existing Zoning: "R-2" Single Family Location: The NW Corner of property located between Walnut Valley Subdivision and 1-430 Site Characteristics: Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land Use and Zoning: Zoning History: Applicable Regulations: Hilltop site, wooded 1.65 acres + Vacant North - Single Family Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant Zoned "R -l" East - Vacant Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family Zoned "R-2" None. Zoning Ordinance CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT February 26, 1980 Item 6 STAFF COMMENT: Little Rock Muncipal Water Works is involved in a major effort to upgrade water service within the City, especially to improve the emergency capabilities of the system. During periods of stormy weather, pump stations are sometimes temporarily knocked out of service due to electrical problems and certain areas of the City, primarily those at higher elevations, suffer interruptions of water flow. This is particularly critical because other emergencies, most frequently fires, tend to come at the same time. The system of towers now under construction will serve to back up pump stations during these emergencies. Neighboring property owners have expressed many concerns about the construction of a water tower in their backyards. They will be at the meeting to request certain compensations for this intrusion. The Water Works has in the past attempted to work with affected neighborhoods in order to reach some agreement regarding color, landscaping and screening. Staff is of the opinion that the public benefits far outweigh the inconveniences forced upon this neighborhood. Once construction is completed, there should be no particular adverse neighborhood effects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. COMMISSION ACTION: Gerald Allen, of the Little Rock Water Works, discussed the meetings that they had with the Arkansas Hospital Board and the problems relative to the sale of property from the State to the City, and also the necessity of going through the various statute requirements. In answer to questions about this site versus other sites that might be available, he stated that during the course of their review of possible locations, there were three criteria established: first, the height of the land in question; secondly, proximity to a water transmission line; and thirdly, need for undeveloped land. He said that over the course of their investigation for a site relative to this area of the City they had found this site plus a site at the Baptist Medical Center and a third site out on Mara Lynn Road further to February 26, 1980 Item No. 6 - Continued the west. He stated that of the three sites, this was the most economically feasible, and there had been some problems in even acquiring the land necessary at the other two sites because the owners were reluctant to sell. He stated, again, the purposes of having the tower for the backup water capacity that is needed within the water system and offered to answer questions, either from the Commission or from neighboring residents. There were approximately 25 neighboring theresidents preset of nt. All of them were very much opposed he water tower at this location, and two spokesmen for the group showed color slides of the surrounding area and discussed the detrimental aesthetic impacts that they felt would accrue to the neighboring property owners. Also, they expressed their concern about the safety hazard of having a water tower where it might possibly, because of storm damage or some other reason, either fall over or release the water into the subdivision. They talked about the possibility of finding additional locations for the water tower. The discussion of this issue went on for about one hour, and finally, because of the questions relative to the Water Works' lack of ownership of the property, it was determined that they dial not have standing to actually apply at this time. Mr. Allen asked that the Planning Commission give them an advisory opinion as to whether or not it would be likely to consider approval of the site were they to gain ownership, citing their willingness to purchase the land but only if they would be able to use it. The City Attorney told the Planning Commission that they could, indeed, take a straw vote or offer an advisory opinion which would not be binding, and on that basis the Planning Commission moved to consider approval of the tower at that location. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent and 1 abstention. Willard Johnson abstained. Item NA b z `7 c1 t , lf�/l)rAL, us, p Owner: Amosms, �74-rt�, I ..a►" /7-A L Applicant: LIfI/ & ko,- ] ��•' b—�gl(� Request:&)j)rrj,qk)AL �stL{l_l_ �D� i4t4ll Wk--ft/2, S-j-tq2A&& TAT Existing Zoning: Location: d� P��'L Site Characteristics: -��Ll."rbP Size: Existing Land Use: Abutting Land &,e and Zoning: Zoning History Applicable Regulations North: South: East. West: Staff Comment The Little Rock -Municipal Water Works is involved in a major effort to upgrade water service within the city, especially to improve the emergency capabilities- of the system. During periods of xtxmm stormy weather, pump stations are sometime temporarily knocked out of service due to electrical problems, and certain areas of the city, primarily those at higher elevations, suffer interuptions in water flow. This is particularly critical tam because other emergencies, most frequently fires, tend to come at the same time. The system of towers now under construction will serve to back-up pump stations during these emergencies. As is its policy, the Water Works is making every effort to work with neighbors who will live nearby to erect the tower with a minimum of disruption to the neighborhood. The have offered to permit the neighborhood association to select the color of the tank and will likely try to come to some agreement about other aspects of the project. The public benefits far outweigh the Fnbe ce construction is completed there ighborhood effects. In fact staff more visible from a distance than SR Approval \ P ��4d�0,0k& costs associated with this pro ject. should be no particular adverse assessmgnt is that the tower will from closeby.