Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4175-A Staff Analysis1 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A NAME: HOSPICE HOME CARE, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: North of and beyond the present end of Dover Dr., approximately 700 feet north of W. 36th. St. and 0.30 mile east of Shackleford Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: Michael Aureli Frank Riggins HOSPICE HOME CARE FOUNDATION THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 1501 N. University Ave. P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 172207 Little Rock, AR 72203 666-9697 375-5331 AREA: 9,691 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 100 ZONING: MF -18 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: General Offices & Hospice Residential Care The applicant proposes a planned development for the Hospice Home Care Foundation, involving construction of an office building for the Hospice Home Care, Inc., two hospice residential care buildings for the Hospice Home Care Foundation, and retention of a 5.5 acre lot for future development. The office building for Hospice Home Care, Inc. is to be the first phase of the project, and is to be built as soon as funds are raised. This building is planned to be a 5,000± square foot building per floor, with, possibly, two floors. The hospice residential care facility is proposed to consist of two buildings, with the first of these being built as funding becomes available, and the second being built as both funding and the occupancy rate can justify its being built. Each of these two residential buildings is to be single -story, and each are planned to have a maximum of 10,000± square feet of floor area. Parking for 58 vehicles is proposed to be provided on site. The cul-de- sac to be built at the end of Dover Dr. is proposed to be built to residential cul-de-sac standards. The applicant states that a hospice residential care facility is one where terminally ill persons are cared for. The Hospice Home Care Foundation's goal is to care for the terminally ill person FILE O.• Z-417 -A(Cont.) in as much of a home -like setting as possible. The site, therefore, is proposed to retain as much of a peaceful, park -like setting as possible, and as much of the natural environment of the site is proposed to be retained as possible, especially to the south and east overlooking the lake in the abutting residential subdivision. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and materials. Driveways and parking areas are proposed to be asphalt, but with no curb and gutter. Drainage is proposed to be directed towards detention storage facilities on site thorough a system of swales and underground drainage pipes. Lighting on-site is to be provided by low intensity fixtures on twelve to fifteen foot poles, located in the parking and driveway areas. Signage will consist of a monument -type sign at the entrance to the property, with on-site directional signs being eye level. The site features are to include a gazebo and, possibly a small chapel. Hours of operation for the office building are normal business hours. The hospice residential care facility, however, will be staffed around the clock, and family members may arrive at any time of the day or night. The applicant explains that the Hospice Home Care Foundation, a non-profit corporation, is the "umbrella" corporate entity which is buying the land and is the developer. A subsidiary corporate entity, Hospice Home Care, Inc., a "for profit" corporate entity, will then develop the proposed office building on Lot 3 of the subdivision. The foundation will develop the hospice residential care facility on Lot 2, and will retain Lot 1 for future development. Because of the corporate structural needs, the development under the auspices of the foundation and the development by the "for profit" corporation need to be on different lots. The proposed development, however, will act as a single site, with cross -access to the Lot 2 area to be provided by a private driveway. The applicant explains that extending Dover Dr. as a public street into the tract to abut Lot 2, or constructing a private "street" (to street standards) to Lot 2 would not be in keeping with the character of a singular campus, park -like atmosphere which they are trying to create, and a waiver of this requirement is being sought as part of the preliminary plat approval. Likewise, the residential standard cul-de-sac is, the applicant, feels completely adequate for their own needs and the needs of existing and future development along Dover Dr. A variance from the requirement to construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac is being sought, also, as part of the preliminary plat approval. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested a planned development for development of a 9.691 acre site to include construction of an office building, two hospice residential care buildings, and retention of a 5.50 acre lot for future development. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A (Cont.) B. E3CI, 5TING CONDTTIONS: The site is undeveloped, and is heavily wooded. There is a 40 foot ground elevation differential across the site, with the slope of the ground generally falling from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast corner. There is a small lake off-site to the east, over which Lots 2 and 3 look. The existing zoning of the tract is MF -18. There is an extension of the MF -18 zoning to the west, where the "Our Way" development is located. To the north is a large MF -12 tract, which is part of the "ERC" (Ecumenical Retirement Center) grounds, and which is being retained for future development by ERC. To the east is a large R-2 area, and, to the south is R-2 zoned land, with a church facility located in this area. At the southwest corner of the tract is a PCD in which the United Cerebral Palsy offices are located. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) It is recommended that the access easement be increased to accommodate a private street in the easement that extends from the Dover Dr. cul-de-sac to provide the required access for Lot 2. This private street should conform to City standards, and driveways abutting this private street should conform to the ordinance. A sidewalk will be required to be constructed on each side of the private street. A 27 foot wide street is acceptable; however, a turn -around devise at the north end of the private street is required, unless a waiver is sought. A concrete apron will be required at the cul-de-sac for this private street. 2) Right-of-way for the cul-de-sac must be dedicated, and a Master Street Plan improvements must be constructed for -the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac right of way should be a minimum of 100 feet, with 130 feet recommended. The pavement diameter should be a minimum of 90 feet, with 100 feet recommended. A sidewalk is required adjacent to the cul-de-sac frontage. A maintenance bond must be posted prior to final platting of the property. 3) A grading permit and NPDES NOI is required before any construction may begin. 4) Stormwater detention is required for the development. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat 3 FzTF NO.; Z -4175-A (Cont.) and be approved by the City Engineer. Show water courses entering the property and the planned exist point for drainage. Easements off-site for this drainage may be required. Evaluation of the off-site drainage systems capacity will be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution analysis may be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. will require easements. Their drawing proposes a 7.5' easement at the perimeter of the lot. The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways are to be a minimum of 20 feet. Fire hydrants shown may need to be moved to facilitate any sprinkler connections. D. ISS❑ES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL LDESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A portion of the street buffer drops below the full requirement of 20 feet, but exceeds the requirement of a 20 foot average. Provision for buffering of the site from abutting residential zoning districts must be made. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the I-430 Planning District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single-family use for the area. The proposed use is more.institutional and/or low density multi -family in reality. Since currently two large churches are located on either side of W. 36th. St. at Dover Dr., and there are other institutional uses on abutting properties, staff proposed to recognize these churches and the other institutional uses, and include the hospice site as a public institutional use in a land use plan amendment. The request, therefore, would then be in conformance with the plan. As pointed out in the preliminary plat "write-up", the provision of access to the otherwise "land -locked" Lot 2 by way of a driveway in an access easement can be supported by the Planning staff, as long as there is the legal relationship between the Hospice Home Care Foundation and Hospice Home Care, Inc. which has been explained by the applicant. If, in the future, this legal relationship 4 FILE Z-417 -A(Cont.) changes, or Lots 2 or 3 are sold to another entity, or there is a re -subdivision of Lot 1, then the access issue of Lot 2 needs to be reviewed. It might be necessary, in such an eventuality, that proper access to Lot 2 be provided by a public or private street, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. ANALYSIS• There are no deficiencies in the planned development site plan, and, subject to the approval of the preliminary plat and the waiver and variance being requested in the application for preliminary plat approval, there are no remaining issues to be resolved. In the approval of the planned development, the requirement noted above involving review of the access issue for Lot 2 if conditions change should be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, subject to the preliminary plat being approved, including the waiver and variance requested, and subject to access to Lot 2 being re -reviewed if the legal status of the ownership of Lots 1, 2, or 3 of the subdivision changes. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995) Mr. Michael Aureli, representing the applicant, and Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the Committee members reviewed with Misters Aureli and Riggins the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Aureli explained the nature of the proposed development and the reasons for their need to have two separate lots for the two developments to be undertaken by the two corporate entities involved; the fact that the non-profit foundation will be purchasing the property, retaining the Lot 1 area for future development, and developing a hospice care facility on Lot 2, then, selling Lot 3 to its "for profit" subsidiary for development of an office building. He explained that it is important to retain as much of a residential/non-commercial "look" as possible, and that they want only a driveway_ access to the Hospice Care facility to be located on Lot 2, not a street. Mr. Riggins explained the rationale for the residential standard cul-de-sac design, and indicated that a variance from the requirement to construct the cul-de-sac to commercial street standards will be pursued. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 5 FILE NO. Z -4175-A (CQnt.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JIINE 27, 1995) The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, to present this item for public hearing and offer a staff recommendation. Sims responded by saying that Item Nos. 1 and 2 should be heard together since they are the same property. Item No. 1 is a preliminary plat and Item No. 2 is the planned office district application. Sims then offered a lengthy explanation of the background of this property. He identified this application as being somewhat different because the typical planned unit development for single use development incorporates the plat in the planned unit development hearing process. In this instance, the total ownership is some 10 acres in area. The proposed development for Hospice Care occupies two lots in one corner of this tract with the rest remaining undeveloped or without a proposal at this time thereby requiring a separate preliminary plat. Sims also pointed out that this PUD application will classify all of the 10 acres as a planned development. This will eliminate the potential for MF -18 zoning developing on a portion of the property and taking access from the cul-de-sac. Sims stated that he had received no negative comments from the neighborhood about this application. He stated that the staff would have placed this application on Consent Agenda, except that there was some change made in the proposal. That is, the applicant will submit a revised application incorporating the entire area. Staff responded to a question from Chairman Walker by saying, that, at this point, the Staff and the applicant are in consensus on the application. Chairman Walker then recognized Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Engineering Firm. Mr. Riggins came forward to make the presentation for the application. Mr. Riggins introduced Michael Railey, the director of Hospice Home Care, as well as Charles Witsell, with the architectural firm. Mr. Riggins offered a lengthy presentation involving a discussion of the patients and the type of care that is offered both on the premises and at the patient's residence. He described the office operation as being a base for the employees working off-site. He stated that the developers of this site see their operation expanding in in-patient care, thereby, producing a need for additional structures at some point in the future. Mr. Riggins stated this is a site that they were looking for to fulfill their need for a quiet forested area away from noise and disturbance. The additional land area is without proposed structure, and at this time it allows the developer flexibility for making those additions or modifications in the future. 6 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A (Cont. Mr. Riggins then asked Mr. Witsell to come forward and present his part of the presentation. Mr. Witsell offered some graphics in presenting the site plan. He offered comments on the adjacent land uses, their type and proximity to this project. He then described the topography of this site as one containing a significant fall from a hill mass on the west to a lake front lying along the east perimeter of the property. He described the property as being wooded. Mr. Witsell stated the cul-de-sac that would be produced at the end of Dover Drive would then be followed by a gate. The gate would provide security at the entrance to the private drive and the drive would serve the second lot in the project. Mr. Witsell then moved to a discussion of the type of business activity carried on off-site, which is the care of persons that are dying. He stated the developers are moving to a second level of activity which will be the in-house care of patients; therefore, requiring a second type of structural involvement on this property and the second lot. This structure would be in-patient and would be the first one in the state. Mr. Witsell described the first building as basically an office for employees that work off-site. The building also will warehouse the equipment and supplies that they utilize, such as oxygen equipment and hospital beds. He then discussed the layout of the parking and pointed to those areas devoted to employee parking as well as the driveways and circulation. In the second development on the second lot, Mr. Witsell described it as being occupied by 12 to 20 beds as individual rooms for patients. He described the environment that would be retained about this structure to enhance the living environment for those persons who are terminal. Mr. Witsell said that if the plan is successful in the future, then the plan would be expanded to incorporate additional structures on other areas of the site. He concluded his remarks. Chairman Walker then asked if Public Works Department wished to address the matter. David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering Design section, came forward and offered general comments on the review by his department, the various concerns they had raised and position on several waivers. Scherer offered specific comments on the cul-de-sac which he feels should be constructed to a collector street standard since it is the terminus of a 36 foot collector street. He then moved to a discussion of private streets and the relationship of the lot in this development which will be served by an easement through a driveway. It is a concern the tie to the potential for future expansion of this project and service of additional buildings by this driveway and easement relationship. The ordinance clearly requires that the drive be constructed in the same standards as a public street. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A (Con Scherer then raised the subject of sidewalk which had not been addressed by the applicant in their presentation. There is a sidewalk required on at least one side around the cul-de-sac. He pointed out that the plan apparently is supposed to replace the sidewalk with private residential walking trails. In a discussion with Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, it was determined that a waiver had not been requested for the sidewalk and it was noted that it would be required. Scherer then commented that the interior circulation street does have a lot of head -in parking which backs or maneuvers into this drive area. He stated that this relationship would need to be reviewed further if the project expanded because there are some blind spots and dangerous traffic relationships created. Scherer stated that the Traffic Engineering Office would like some right of refusal in this design at some point in the future to deal with these issues. Commissioner Woods posed a question as to why this street standard was required to go to commercial. He asked if it was because this is office. The current street was constructed as a residential collector. Scherer indicated that the ordinance requires a commercial standard because this is a business activity. A discussion then followed involving Commissioner Woods and David Scherer about the need of sidewalks and where they would go and who they would serve. It was agreed that the sidewalk currently runs down the east side of the street, running to this site from 36th Street. But, that possibly in -lieu of a sidewalk an internal circulation plan needs to be devised that would tie to the existing sidewalk. Commissioner Woods then posed a question, What is the anticipated traffic count? Mr. Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Firm, approached the lectern and discussed with Bobby Sims the issues that had been presented by David Scherer. Mr. Riggins indicated to staff that he thought he had included the subject of sidewalks in previous discussion and written material submitted. He said there would be an internalized circulation plan for pedestrians. In response to one of David Scherer's comments about emergency vehicles, Mr. Riggins stated that they wanted to preserve the private residential low-key activity of environment. In order to do this, some of the conventional kinds of landclearing and wide thoroughfares would not be compatible. He stated the architecture would be residential in character. Mr. Riggins then asked the director of the facility to come forward and offer comments on the development proposal. Mr. Witsell stated that this land was being purchased from the ecumenical retirement center which owns properties to the north and west. He described the composition of the employees and how many of them come to the office at given times, the hours of operation and days per week at the visited site. He stated that the frequency of these employees visiting the site would be low 8 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A (Con with little traffic generation at a given time. Mr. Witsell stated there would be 7 to 10 people on staff that would work there each day. These people are recordkeepers and administrative staff. Mr. Witsell commented on the traffic generation from the in-patient care facility as being quite low because these persons would not be having automobiles and driving. The only persons that would come to this structure would perhaps be family members or medical personnel. He stated that this would perhaps be only 8 to 10 cars per day. Mr. Riggins returned to the lectern and offered that there was an additional variance which he would like to enter into the record. The variance include a fence along the lake side of the property. The developers felt like this fence of the height required would be obstructive to their development and would eliminate part of the environment they were seeking. Mr. Riggins stated that this site was selected because of the view of the lake through the trees and the fence would eliminate this. (Staff Note: This fence was not required in a manner that the City Board of Directors will have to deal with a variance. It will be a site plan variance only.) Chairman Walker asked Mr. Riggins to describe the ownership - relationship around the lake. Mr. Riggins pointed out there was a property owners association controlling the land area around the lake. There was a brief discussion about this ownership -relationship as to whether or not there were other parties permitted to utilize the facilities around the lake. Mr. Riggins stated he was not aware that there was a relationship between the MF -18 site and the property owners association that require the payment of dues. Mr. Riggins then moved to his commentary to the subject of a neighborhood meeting which was held approximately two weeks ago. There was an -invitation extended to the residential area adjacent and there were several representatives of the association and residential area present at that meeting. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Riggins stated the neighborhood did not respond to the fence issue. It was not discussed. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that staff did attend that neighborhood meeting and there were no objectors in attendance at that time. Sims then offered a brief comment describing the basis for the approach chosen with the private drive and the isolated lot. This had to do with the mortgage relationship and separate titles dealing with the inpatient versus outpatient business activity. He also stated the developers' intent to obtain the waiver on the residential versus the commercial cul-de-sac dimension. The Chairman injected a thought at this point that Public Works did not apparently support the variance on the cul-de-sac dimension. Sims then FILE Z-417 -A n pointed to the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac as being a second issue for a waiver or a variance. A brief discussion between the Chairman and Bobby Sims determined that during a commercial review for site plan, that the internal circulation system was such that it required a waiver from the City Board, unlike that in a residential design where there was some flexibility. At the request of the Chairman, David Scherer came to the lectern and pointed out that his department would perhaps support the circulation system once reviewed as in -lieu of the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Woods then offered commentary about the sidewalk and the residential street standard. He preferred that it not be upgraded to commercial standards because of children playing in the area. He stated that at this time Dover Drive was a residential street and it was platted as residential for some 750 feet with sidewalk on the east side. In a brief exchange between the Chairman and Commissioner Woods, it was understood that he being a resident of that street as well as a commissioner did not want to see the expansion of the street to commercial standards because it might encourage commercial activity. The Chairman then stated that the discussion was apparently complete and presentations are complete. He pointed out there was a notice issue that has been cured by time. The notices mailed to the neighborhood identified the meeting as starting at 12:30 when it began at 9:00 a.m. He stated for the record that he did not feel it would be required that they have a motion and waive the bylaws. The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission for a vote also stating the specific variances or waivers that were requested. The first of these to be included is the private street or the lot platting without public street frontage. The second being an on-site internal circulation plan in -lieu of sidewalks, thereby waiving sidewalks around the cul-de-sac. The third as being a variance to reduce the cul-de-sac diameter from commercial to residential standard that is 90 to 80 feet or to a diameter that is agreed upon by Public Works. He pointed out the fence along the east property line as a requested waiver although not required action by the City Board of Directors. Chairman Walker then asked for a vote on Item Nos. 1 and 2 as presented. The item produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application for preliminary plat and planned office development is approved, with the variances forwarded to the Board of Directors for final action. 10 NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - I-430 District LOCATION: Either side of West 36th Street at Dover REQUEST: Single Family to Public Institutional SOURCE: Staff - Z -4175-A STAFF REPORT• There is a request to develop institutional residential use at the northern end of Dover. Currently, there is a large institutional residential area to the west of the proposed site. In addition, there is a church to the south. The intensity of the residential is low (though greater than single family). Because of the similar uses in the area and proposed location, this is a logical expansion of institution housing. In order to reflect existing conditions, the Public Institutional area should be extended east to Dover and south of 36th Street from Dover west some 400 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval DAME: HOSPICE HOME CARE, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: North of and beyond the present end of Dover Dr., approximately 700 feet north of W. 36th. St. and 0.30 mile east of Shackleford Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Michael Aureli Frank Riggins HOSPICE HOME CARE FOUNDATION THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 1501 N. University Ave. P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 172207 Little Rock, AR 72203 666-9697 375-5331 AREA: 9,691 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 100 ZONING: MF -18 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CE_"US _TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES -REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: General Offices & Hospice Residential Care The applicant proposes a planned development for the Hospice Home Care Foundation, involving construction of an office building for the Hospice Home Care, Inc., two hospice residential care buildings for the Hospice Home Care Foundation, and retention of a 5.5 acre lot for future development. The office building for Hospice Home Care, Inc. is to be the first phase of the project, and is to be built as soon as funds are raised. This building is planned to be a 5,000± square foot building per floor, with, possibly, two floors. The hospice residential care facility is proposed to consist of two buildings, with the first of these being built as funding becomes available, and the second being built as both funding and the occupancy rate can justify its being built. Each of these two residential buildings is to be single -story, and each are planned to have a maximum of 10,000± square feet of floor area. Parking for 58 vehicles is proposed to be provided on site. The cul-de- sac to be built at the end of Dover Dr. is proposed to be built to residential cul-de-sac standards. The applicant states that a hospice residential care facility is one where terminally ill persons are cared for. The Hospice Home Care Foundation's goal is to care for the terminally ill person TLE NO.: Z -4175-A __(Con in as much of a home -like setting as possible. The site, therefore, is proposed to retain as much of a peaceful, park -like setting as possible, and as much of the natural environment of the site is proposed to be retained as possible, especially to the south and east overlooking the lake in the abutting residential subdivision. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and materials. Driveways and parking areas are proposed to be asphalt, but with no curb and gutter. Drainage is proposed to be directed towards detention storage facilities on site thorough a system of swales and underground drainage pipes. Lighting on-site is to be provided by low intensity fixtures on twelve to fifteen foot poles, located in the parking and driveway areas. Signage will consist of a monument -type sign at the entrance to the property, with on-site directional signs being eye level. The site features are to include a gazebo and, possibly a small chapel. Hours of operation for the office building are normal business hours. The hospice residential care facility, however, will be staffed around the clock, and family members may arrive at any time of the day or night. The applicant explains that the Hospice Home Care Foundation, a non-profit corporation, is the "umbrella" corporate entity which is buying the land and is the developer. A subsidiary corporate entity, Hospice Home Care, Inc., a "for profit" corporate entity, will then develop the proposed office building on Lot 3 of the subdivision. The foundation will develop the hospice residential care facility on Lot 2, and will retain Lot 1 for future development. Because of the corporate structural needs, the development under the auspices of the foundation and the development by the "for profit" corporation need to be on different lots. The proposed development, however, will act as a single site, with cross -access to the Lot 2 area to be provided by a private driveway. The applicant explains that extending Dover Dr. as a public street into the tract to abut Lot 2, or constructing a private "street" (to street standards) to Lot 2 would not be in keeping with the character of a singular campus, park -like atmosphere which they are trying to create, and a waiver of this requirement is being sought as part of the preliminary plat approval. Likewise, the residential standard cul-de-sac is, the applicant, feels completely adequate for their own needs and the needs of existing and future development along Dover Dr. A variance from the requirement to construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac is being sought, also, as part of the preliminary plat approval. A. PR0P0SAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested a planned development for development of a 9.691 acre site to include construction of an office building, two hospice residential care buildings, and retention of a 5.50 acre lot for future development. K FILE NO.: Z-417 5= A (Cont.) B. EXTSTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, and is heavily wooded. There is a 40 foot ground elevation differential across the site, with the slope of the ground generally falling from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast corner. There is a small lake off-site to the east, over which Lots 2 and 3 look. The existing zoning of the tract is MF -18. There is an extension of the MF -18 zoning to the west, where the "Our Way" development is located. To the north is a large MF -12 tract, which is part of the "ERC" (Ecumenical Retirement Center) grounds, and which is being retained for future development by ERC. To the east is a large R-2 area, and, to the south is R-2 zoned land, with a church facility located in this area. At the southwest corner of the tract is a PCD in which the United Cerebral Palsy offices are located. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) It is recommended that the access easement be increased to accommodate a private street in the easement that extends from the Dover Dr. cul-de-sac to provide the required access for Lot 2. This private street should conform to City standards, and driveways abutting this private street should conform to the ordinance. A sidewalk will be required to be constructed on each side of the private street. A 27 foot wide street is acceptable; however, a turn -around devise at the north end of the private street is required, unless a waiver is sought. A concrete apron will be required at the cul-de-sac for this private street. 2) Right-of-way for the cul-de-sac must be dedicated, and a Master Street Plan improvements must be constructed for the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac right of way should be a minimum of 100 feet, with 130 feet recommended. The pavement diameter should be a minimum of 90 feet, with 100 feet recommended. A sidewalk is required adjacent to the cul-de-sac frontage. A maintenance bond must be posted prior to final platting of the property. 3) A grading permit and NPDES NOI is required before any construction may begin. 4) Stormwater detention is required for the development. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat 3 L Z-417 -A(Cont.) and be approved by the City Engineer. Show water courses entering the property and the planned exist point for drainage. Easements off-site for this drainage may be required. Evaluation of the off-site drainage systems capacity will be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution analysis may be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Their drawing proposes a 7.5' easement at the perimeter of the lot. The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways are to be a minimum of 20 feet. Fire hydrants shown may need to be moved to facilitate any sprinkler connections. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A portion of the street buffer drops below the full requirement of 20 feet, but exceeds the requirement of a 20 foot average. Provision for buffering of the site from abutting residential zoning districts must be made. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the I-430 Planning District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single-family use for the area. The proposed use is more.institutional and/or low density multi -family in reality.- Since currently two large churches are located on either side of W. 36th. St. at Dover Dr., and there are other institutional uses on abutting properties, staff proposed to recognize these churches and the other institutional uses, and include the hospice site as a public institutional use in a land use plan amendment. The request, therefore, would then be in conformance with the plan. As pointed out in the preliminary plat "write-up", the provision of access to the otherwise "land -locked" Lot 2 by way of a driveway in an access easement can be supported by the Planning staff, as long as there is the legal relationship between the Hospice Home Care Foundation and Hospice Home Care, Inc. which has been explained by the applicant. If, in the future, this legal relationship 4 FILE NO.: Z-4 7 -A n changes, or Lots 2 or 3 are sold to another entity, or there is a re -subdivision of Lot 1, then the access issue of Lot 2 needs to be reviewed. It might be necessary, in such an eventuality, that proper access to Lot 2 be provided by a public or private street, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. ANALYSIS• There are no deficiencies in the planned development site plan, and, subject to the approval of the preliminary plat and the waiver and variance being requested in the application for preliminary plat approval, there are no remaining issues to be resolved. In the approval of the planned development, the requirement noted above involving review of the access issue for Lot 2 if conditions change should be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, subject to the preliminary plat being approved, including the waiver and variance requested, and subject to access to Lot 2 being re -reviewed if the legal status of the ownership of Lots 1, 2, or 3 of the subdivision changes. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 81 1995) Mr. Michael Aureli, representing the applicant, and Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development, and the Committee members reviewed with Misters Aureli and Riggins the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Aureli explained the nature of the proposed development and the reasons for their need to have two separate lots for the two developments to be undertaken by the two corporate entities involved; the fact that the non-profit foundation will be purchasing the property, retaining the Lot 1 area for future development, and developing a hospice care facility on Lot 2, then, selling Lot 3 to its "for profit" subsidiary for development of an office building. He explained that it is important to retain as much of a residential/non-commercial "look" as possible, and that they want only a driveway access to the Hospice Care facility to be located on Lot 2, not a street. Mr. Riggins explained the rationale for the residential standard cul-de-sac design, and indicated that a variance from the requirement to construct the cul-de-sac to commercial street standards will be pursued. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 5 FILE Z-417 -A(Cont,) (JUNE 27, 1995) The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, to present this item for public hearing and offer a staff recommendation. Sims responded by saying that Item Nos. 1 and 2 should be heard together since they are the same property. Item No. 1 is a preliminary plat and Item No. 2 is the planned office district application. Sims then offered a lengthy explanation of the background of this property. He identified this application as being somewhat different because the typical planned unit development for single use development incorporates the plat in the planned unit development hearing process. In this instance, the total ownership is some 10 acres in area. The proposed development for Hospice Care occupies two lots in one corner of this tract with the rest remaining undeveloped or without a proposal at this time thereby requiring a separate preliminary plat. Sims also pointed out that this PUD application will classify all of the 10 acres as a planned development. This will eliminate the potential for MF -18 zoning developing on a portion of the property and taking access from the cul-de-sac. Sims stated that he had received no negative comments from the neighborhood about this application. He stated that the staff would have placed this application on Consent Agenda, except that there was some change made in the proposal. That is, the applicant will submit a revised application incorporating the entire area. Staff responded to a question from Chairman Walker by saying, that, at this point, the Staff and the applicant are in consensus on the application. Chairman Walker then recognized Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Engineering Firm. Mr. Riggins came forward to make the presentation for the application. Mr. Riggins introduced Michael Railey, the director of Hospice Home Care, as well as Charles Witsell, with the architectural firm. Mr. Riggins offered a lengthy presentation involving a discussion of the patients and the type of care that is offered both on the premises and at the patient's residence. He described the office operation as being a base for the employees working off-site. He stated that the developers of this site see their operation expanding in in-patient care, thereby, producing a need for additional structures at some point in the future. Mr. Riggins stated this is a site that they were looking for to fulfill their need for a quiet forested area away from noise and disturbance. The additional land area is without proposed structure, and at this time it allows the developer flexibility for making those additions or modifications in the future. 6 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A. (Cont.) Mr. Riggins then asked Mr. Witsell to come forward and present his part of the presentation. Mr. Witsell offered some graphics in presenting the site plan. He offered comments on the adjacent land uses, their type and proximity to this project. He then described the topography of this site as one containing a significant fall from a hill mass on the west to a lake front lying along the east perimeter of the property. He described the property as being wooded. Mr. Witsell stated the cul-de-sac that would be produced at the end of Dover Drive would then be followed by a gate. The gate would provide security at the entrance to the private drive and the drive would serve the second lot in the project. Mr. Witsell then moved to a discussion of the type of business activity carried on off-site, which is the care of persons that are dying. He stated the developers are moving to a second level of activity which will be the in-house care of patients; therefore, requiring a second type of structural involvement on this property and the second lot. This structure would be in-patient and would be the first one in the state. Mr. Witsell described the first building as basically an office for employees that work off-site. The building also will warehouse the equipment and supplies that they utilize, such as oxygen equipment and hospital beds. He then discussed the layout of the parking and pointed to those areas devoted to employee parking as well as the driveways and circulation. In the second development on the second lot, Mr. Witsell described it as being occupied by 12 to 20 beds as individual rooms for patients. He described the environment that would be retained about this structure to enhance the living environment for those persons who are terminal. Mr. Witsell said that if the plan is successful in the future, then the plan would be expanded to incorporate additional structures on other areas of the site. He concluded his remarks. Chairman Walker then asked if Public Works Department wished to address the matter. David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering Design section; came forward and offered general comments on the review by his department, the various concerns they had raised and position on several waivers. Scherer offered specific comments on the cul-de-sac which he feels should be constructed to a collector street standard since it is the terminus of a 36 foot collector street. He then moved to a discussion of private streets and the relationship of the lot in this development which will be served by an easement through a driveway. It is a concern the tie to the potential for future expansion of this project and service of additional buildings by this driveway and easement relationship. The ordinance clearly requires that the drive be constructed in the same standards as a public street. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4175-A (Con Scherer then raised the subject of sidewalk which had not been addressed by the applicant in their presentation. There is a sidewalk required on at least one side around the cul-de-sac. He pointed out that the plan apparently is supposed to replace the sidewalk with private residential walking trails. In a discussion with Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, it was determined that a waiver had not been requested for the sidewalk and it was noted that it would be required. Scherer then commented that the interior circulation street does have a lot of head -in parking which backs or maneuvers into this drive area. He stated that this relationship would need to be reviewed further if the project expanded because there are some blind spots and dangerous traffic relationships created. Scherer stated that the Traffic Engineering Office would like some right of refusal in this design at some point in the future to deal with these issues. Commissioner Woods posed a question as to why this street standard was required to go to commercial. He asked if it was because this is office. The current street was constructed as a residential collector. Scherer indicated that the ordinance requires a commercial standard because this is a business activity. A discussion then followed involving Commissioner Woods and David Scherer about the need of sidewalks and where they would go and who they would serve. It was agreed that the sidewalk currently runs down the east side of the street, running to this site from 36th Street. But, that possibly in -lieu of a sidewalk an internal circulation plan needs to be devised that would tie to the existing sidewalk. Commissioner Woods then posed a question, what is the anticipated traffic count? Mr. Frank Riggins, of the Mehlburger Firm, approached the lectern and discussed with Bobby Sims the issues that had been presented by David Scherer. Mr. Riggins indicated to staff that he thought he had included the subject of sidewalks in previous discussion and written material submitted. He said there would be an internalized circulation plan for pedestrians. In response to one of David Scherer's comments about emergency vehicles, Mr. Riggins stated that they wanted to preserve the private residential low-key activity of environment. In order to do this, some of the conventional kinds of landclearing and wide thoroughfares would not be compatible. He stated the architecture would be residential in character. Mr. Riggins then asked the director of the facility to come forward and offer comments on the development proposal. Mr. Witsell stated that this land was being purchased from the ecumenical retirement center which owns properties to the north and west. He described the composition of the employees and how many of them come to the office at given times, the hours of operation and days per week at the visited site. He stated that the frequency of these employees visiting the site would be low 8 FILE NO.: Z -417$-A (Con with little traffic generation at a given time. Mr. Witsell stated there would be 7 to 10 people on staff that would work there each day. These people are recordkeepers and administrative staff. Mr. Witsell commented on the traffic generation from the in-patient care facility as being quite low because these persons would not be having automobiles and driving. The only persons that would come to this structure would perhaps be family members or medical personnel. He stated that this would perhaps be only 8 to 10 cars per day. Mr. Riggins returned to the lectern and offered that there was an additional variance which he would like to enter into the record. The variance include a fence along the lake side of the property. The developers felt like this fence of the height required would be obstructive to their development and would eliminate part of the environment they were seeking. Mr. Riggins stated that this site was selected because of the view of the lake through the trees and the fence would eliminate this. (Staff Note: This fence was not required in a manner that the City Board of Directors will have to deal with a variance. It will be a site plan variance only.) Chairman Walker asked Mr. Riggins to describe the ownership - relationship around the lake. Mr. Riggins pointed out there was a property owners association controlling the land area around the lake. There was a brief discussion about this ownership -relationship as to whether or not there were other parties permitted to utilize the facilities around the lake. Mr. Riggins stated he was not aware that there was a relationship between the MF -18 site and the property owners association that require the payment of dues. Mr. Riggins then moved to his commentary to the subject of a neighborhood meeting which was held approximately two weeks ago. There was an invitation extended to the residential area adjacent and there were several representatives of the association and residential area present at that meeting. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Riggins stated the neighborhood did not respond to the fence issue. It was not discussed. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that staff did attend that neighborhood meeting and there were no objectors in attendance at that time. Sims then offered a brief comment describing the basis for the approach chosen with the private drive and the isolated lot. This had to do with the mortgage relationship and separate titles dealing with the inpatient versus outpatient business activity. He also stated the developers' intent to obtain the waiver on the residential versus the commercial cul-de-sac dimension. The Chairman injected a thought at this point that Public Works did not apparently support the variance on the cul-de-sac dimension. Sims then 9 FILE NQ.=_;. Z-417 -A n pointed to the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac as being a second issue for a waiver or a variance. A brief discussion between the Chairman and Bobby Sims determined that during a commercial review for site plan, that the internal circulation system was such that it required a waiver from the City Board, unlike that in a residential design where there was some flexibility. At the request of the Chairman, David Scherer came to the lectern and pointed out that his department would perhaps support the circulation system once reviewed as in -lieu of the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Woods then offered commentary about the sidewalk and the residential street standard. He preferred that it not be upgraded to commercial standards because of children playing in the area. He stated that at this time Dover Drive was a residential street and it was platted as residential for some 750 feet with sidewalk on the east side. In a brief exchange between the Chairman and Commissioner Woods, it was understood that he being a resident of that street as well as a commissioner did not want to see the expansion of the street to commercial standards because it might encourage commercial activity. The Chairman then stated that the discussion was apparently complete and presentations are complete. He pointed out there was a notice issue that has been cured by time. The notices mailed to the neighborhood identified the meeting as starting at 12:30 when it began at 9:00 a.m. He stated for the record that he did not feel it would be required that they have a motion and waive the bylaws. The Chairman then placed the item before the Commission for a vote also stating the specific variances or waivers that were requested. The first of these to be included is the private street or the lot platting without public street frontage. The second being.an on-site internal circulation plan in -lieu of sidewalks, thereby waiving sidewalks around the cul-de-sac. The third as being a variance to reduce the cul-de-sac diameter from commercial to residential standard that is 90 to 80 feet or to a diameter that is agreed upon'by Public Works. He pointed out the fence along the east property line as a requested waiver although not required action by the City Board of Directors. Chairman Walker then asked for a vote on Item Nos. 1 and 2 as presented. The item produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application for preliminary plat and planned office development is approved, with the variances forwarded to the Board of Directors for final action. 10