Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3862-C Staff AnalysisI . Meeting Date: January 4, 1995 2• Casio_: Z -3862-C 3..9 est: Establish PARKWAY VILLAGE - FORM PRD for expansion of the nursing home on the site. 4. Location: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, north of the Pride Valley Rd. intersection 5. Owner/APplicant: Baptist Medical System 6. Existing Status: The site is the present location of Parkway Village, and is zoned PRD. The originally approved PRD involved approval of a "conceptual" site plan, and, as planning of the various phases of the development are "firmed -up,,, amendE:d site plans are presented for approval of that next phase of the development. 7. Proposed Use: The Parkway Village PRD is a multi -use retirement village involving a nursing home facility, an intermediate care facility, independent living uses, etc. The specific request associated with the current amended site pian is for a 10,000 square foot addition, in two phases, of the nursing home facility. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. PlanningCommission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions ar Issues Rema inin to be Resolved: None 11. Ri ht-of-wa Issues. None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Ob'ectors: None. (There were 15 area residents in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing who were objectors to the proposal to continue using the temporary construction drive which lies along the north boundary of the Parkway Village site and which abuts the homes in the St. Charles neighborhood, but none objected to the nursing home expansion. The request to continue using the temporary construction drive was withdrawn by the applicant.) 14. Neighborhood Contact Person ethers: Ms. Ann Borg, St. Charles Neighborhood Association 15. Ne i hborizood plan : Chenal (19 ) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C NAME: PARKWAY VILLAGE -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, north of the Pride Valley Rd. intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEMS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9601 I-630, Exit 7 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-1744 374-1666 AREA: 78 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Retirement Village PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE AND PROPOSAL: The PRD for the Parkway Village retirement village was reviewed by the. Planning Commission on July 13, 1982, and was established by the Board of Directors in Ordinance No. 14,274 on August 3, 1982. The originally approved site plan was conceptual for much of the future development area, and subsequent to the original approval, there have been amendments to the original PRD in order to accommodate development in the future development area. A part of the originally approved site plan included the health care center, and, with this application, an addition to the health care center is proposed. Also, to provide access to the northern portion of the site for heavy construction traffic, a temporary roadway was constructed along the northern boundary of the site. Because of complaints from abutting property owners to the north, a time limit for removal of the temporary roadway and a return of the area to its former condition was set and agreed to by Baptist Medical Systems officials, the affected property owners and the St. Charles Neighborhood Association, and the City. That date was March 1, 1995. The current proposal, then, is for approval of an addition to the health care center, and for an extension of the date for removal of the temporary access road to January 1, 1996. The health care center addition is proposed to be accomplished in two phases over a 5 -year time period, with the initial phase of construction to begin immediately. It will increase the number of rooms of the health care center by 10 to 12 patient rooms in each phase, with an increase in floor area of FILE NO.: Z- 862-C [Continued approximately 5,000 square feet in each phase. The construction of the addition will be similar to the existing construction, and will be one story. The new addition will be not closer to the north property line than 125 feet. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of an amendment to the existing PRD is requested in order for an addition to be made the existing health care center, and for an extension until January 1, 1996 for removal of the temporary access road along the north boundary of the PRD site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is being developed as a retirement community, with much of the central core area having been developed over the past 14 years. An area along Loyola Dr. to the east of the developed area, has not been developed. Much of the area west of the current developed area is undeveloped. The existing zoning of the site is PRD. C. ENGGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the temporary construction access road is to be removed prior to March 1, 1995; 2) stormwater detention and boundary survey information are required; and, 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction. Water Works comments that additional on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer is available on the site. Wastewater Utility must be contacted prior to construction. Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that additional fire hydrants may be required for this addition. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for buffer and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. 2 FILE NO.: Z -3862-C Continued D . IS SUES/ LEGAL/ TE CHNI CAL I DES I GN: The Planning staff comments that the request is in the Chenal District, that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multi -Family" uses. There are no land use issues. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that: 1) the portion of the site which is being dealt with needs to be shown enlarged, and a detailed site plan needs to be provided; 2) the site pian needs to show the areas for landscaping; 3) any proposed lighting on the north side of the building needs to be designated, and the bleedover must be controlled; 4) a cross section through and treatment of the cut along the north side of the building must be provided. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed addition to the health care center is a relatively minor addition within the context of the whole project, and the separation from the residential uses to the north will be 125 feet. The temporary construction road along the north boundary of the site, however, is,a nuisance to the residents which abut it, and there was agreement among all parties involved that the roadway would be removed by March 1, 1995. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the health care center, but recommends that the agreed -to date of March 1, 1995, and the agreed -to conditions, be adhered to for removal of the temporary construction roadway. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. The discussion outline was reviewed with Mr. White, and the Com-nittee reviewed the proposed site plan. Mr. White related that the needed exhibit would be provided, and that the deficiencies would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the application, indicating that the request involved two issues: the request to construct an addition to the existing nursing home facility, and the request to extend the use of the temporary construction roadway until January, 1996, 3 FILE N Z -3862-C (Continued Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., represented the applicant. Mr. Daters presented an overview of the history of the Parkway Village PRD and of the proposal before the Commission. Mr. Earl Paul, Vice -President of Baptist Medical System, reviewed with the Commission the types of uses presently making up the PRD, and reviewed the requested amendment to the PRD. Mr. William Miller, a resident of Parkway Village, spoke in support of the request. He explained that he takes daily walks within the Village, and feels that construction traffic going through the Village would be dangerous to the residents who drive and walk in the area. Ms. Virginia Queen, introducing herself as the chairperson of the Parkway Village Residents' Council, spoke in support of the request. She indicated that Parkway Village is made up of over 400 older citizens, and that the proposal to continue the use of the construction drive along the north property line is beneficial to the safety of these older citizens. Ms. Ann Borg, Executive Directors of the St. Charles Community Association, spoke in opposition to the request to extend the length of time during which the temporary construction roadway may be used. She said that the location of the roadway affects property values of the homes in St. Charles which abut the area of the roadway. She presented a petition, signed, she said, by 51 residents of the street which abut the construction drive, who are in opposition to the requested extension of time for use of the drive. She related that she had a videotape which shows the area of the construction drive and of the abutting properties, and offered to play the tape for the Commissioners, if the Commission wished to view it. She said that the Association does not oppose the request for an addition to the nursing home. Ms. Neoma Rowell, who identified herself as a Realtor with Rainey Realty, spoke in opposition to the extension of time for use of the temporary construction roadway, saying that it affects the marketability of the homes which abut it. Mr. Bruce Swinburne, identifying himself as a property owner of a home which abuts the area in which the construction drive is located, spoke in opposition to the extension of time being granted for the drive's use. He said that construction trucks use the dride very early in the morning, and that other vehicles, possibility Parkway Village security personnel, turn around behind his and his wife's home late at night. He urged the Commission not to change the agreed -to date of March 1, 1995, for Parkway Village to discontinue use of the construction drive. Mr. Marlow Small, indicating that his and his family's residence abuts the construction roadway area, said that the roadway is a nuisance. He said that there are vehicles which use the roadway 4 FILE NO.: Z -3862-C Continued at all hours of the day and night, and that, according to the police, burglars which recently burglarized a next-door neighbor's home, used the driveway for access to the rear of the home. Ms. Wendy Allen complained that the required buffer areas behind her home, which separates her property and Parkway Village uses, is being encroached upon. She related that she had recently noted a bulldozer in the buffer, and that the operator had told her that his instructions were to clear the area. She said that she had called Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, and that encroachment in the buffer area had not resumed. She said that in most of the area south of the St. Michael Dr. - LaSalle Dr., the buffer area is not planted, and that there are no plantings which provide buffering or a barrier between the construction traffic and the rear yards of abutting properties. Mr. Doug Smith, identifying himself as a Realtor and a member of the St. Charles Property Owners' Association, spoke in opposition to the request to extend the length of time for use of the construction drive. Mr. Harry Blair, who identified his residence as one fronting on St. Michael Dr. and whose rear yard abuts the area of the construction driveway, spoke in opposition to the continued use of the driveway beyond the March 1, 1995 deadline. He said that when he bought his home, he had known that there were no drives provided for in the approved PRD site plan, and that Parkway Village is violating the terms of the PRD by constructing and using the driveway in its present location. Mr. Vic Bolton, identifying himself as owning property which abuts the area of the construction drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal to continue using the driveway beyond the agreed -to March 1, 1995 deadline. He said that use of the temporary driveway has gone on long enough. Mr. Byron Holmes, identifying himself as owning a home which faces S. Michael Dr. and which backs up to the area occupied by the temporary construction drive, said that the home which had been referred to earlier as one that had been burglarized was his home, and that he opposed the continued use or presence of the drive. Mr. Jamie Harrison indicated that he had no further information to present, but supported his neighbors' in their opposition to the continued use of the driveway along the rear of their properties. Mr. Charlie Miller said that he and his wife would give up their three minutes each of time in order for the videotape which had been alluded to earlier to be played. 5 FILE NO.: Z -3862-C Continued The videotape, which had been referred to by Ms. Ann Borg, was played, which showed the construction drive, trucks using it and Loyola Dr., and the abutting residential properties. Commissioner Willis suggested that hours of use of the driveway be imposed; that, possibly, a caution light be erected to warn drivers of trucks which turn onto or from the construction drive from or onto Loyola Dr.; and that fencing and buffering be required to separate the Parkway Village use area from the residential uses to the north. Mr. Daters requested that the proposal to extend the time for use of the construction driveway beyond the March 1, 1995 deadline be withdrawn, and that only the approval of the addition to the nursing home be considered. He indicated that, over the next few weeks, Baptist Medical System officials would meet with representatives and residents of the neighborhood to see if there was anything that could be done to make use of the drive acceptable to the neighbors. With Mr. Dater's amendment to the request deleting the request tc extend the time for use of the construction drive, a motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PRD to permit the construction of the addition to the nursing home. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 6