The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-4479-A Staff AnalysisJune 1, 1993 ITEM N 8 FILE NO.: Z-447 -A DAME: PLEASANT VALLEY LIVING CENTER II - SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: 12111 Hinson Road DEVELOPER: SOUTHERN KEY INVESTMENTS, INC. 11019 Perkins Road, Suite C Baton Rouge, LA 70810 504-769-7960 ENGINEER: TIMOTHY E. DATERS, P.E. WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOC., INC. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 4.7622 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-2 PROPOSED USES: Nursing Home PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REaVESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 70 -bed nursing home facility containing 24,000 square feet of floor area with 53 on-site parking spaces. This building is proposed to be very similar in layout and style to the Phase I facility to the east on the adjoining site. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL RE GEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested of the site plan for the Pleasant Living Center II project. The development utilizes a 2.4683 acre site to the west of the existing,Phase I building site. Access to the Phase II development is by way of the Phase I drive and access easement to Henson Road. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed site is overgrown and has heavy growth of trees. The property is zoned 0-2. To the south is a "PRD"; to the southwest is a "R-211 area. Immediately to the west of the new public library, the remaining property to the north and east is 0-2 or 0-3 zoned property. June 1, 1993 5UBDIVI S ION ITEM NO.: $ Continued FILE NO.: Z7_ -A C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering Division has no comments. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater Utility reports that a capacity contribution charge will be required prior to connection to sewer. They suggest the applicant contact Wastewater Utility for details. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company reports that easements will be required. ` The Fire Department approve the site plan with no comment. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: A review of the documents submitted reveals the following deficiencies: No landscaping/buffer plan is submitted. There is no indication of the proposed treatment of the perimeter screening. The requirement that a graphic and narrative outline of methods to be employed to protect permanent undisturbed buffers is not contained in the submittal. There is no indication of existing or proposed easements. No topographical cross-section map is provided. Quantitative data is omitted which is supposed to report the proposed building coverage of the site. There is no land survey provided. E. ANALYSIS: The property for the Phase II development was recently platted as part of the Phase I property, and was recently zoned as 0-2. Technical submittals to date have been only sketchy and schematic, with major questions arising as to the means of dealing with the 20 foot cut at the southwest corner of the property, the means of meeting the buffer and landscaping requirements, etc., as indicated above. 2 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ (Continued) 'TLE NO.: 17.-447 -A F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: There is no problem with the concept of the proposed development, but there are major deficiencies in the plans which have been submitted and in the information available to staff to be able to make an informed recommendation. Therefore, staff recommends deferral of the application at this time pending further and complete technical submissions. SUBDIVISTON COMMTTTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) Mr. Joe White, who was present at the Committee meeting on the other matters and whose firm is the local engineer on this project, represented the applicant. Staff presented the concerns regarding the lack of proposed plans and information. Mr. white indicated that he would deliver the concerns to the developer. STAFF UPDATE: Mr. Jess Keathley has informed staff that he is the owner of the property lying between Pleasant Valley Living Center, Phase I and Hinson Road, and that it is property from which the access easement was granted for access to the rear property. Mr. Keathley reports that the access easement may not be utilized for access to the rear property if Phase II is added; he reports this violates the term of the agreement establishing the access easement. He further reports that he has never been notified of any action on the previously approved subdivision adjoining his property or of the site plan review application. Staff recommends deferral of this item, again, because of these additional problems which have been raised. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 1, 1993) Mr. Michael Johns, attorney was present to represent the applicant. Staff outlined the history of the developments on this item: the Commission has previously approved a re- subdivision of land which had been identified initially as Hinson Manor Office Park, but which had been combined with Lot 2 of Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition to form Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition, Lots 2R and Lot 3; the Commission had previously approved a Site Plan for Fellowship Bible Church offices and classroom building to be located on Lot 3 of this new re -subdivision; and, access to Lot 2R is by way of an access 3 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-447 -A easement which had been granted by the owner of Lot 1 of Pleasant Valley Living Center when the original Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition had been platted. Staff reported that there had not seemed to be a problem with the application until the owner of the Lot 1, Mr. Jess Keathley, had indicated that be objected to the utilization of the access easement which he had granted across his property to Lot 2 for access to the newly designated Lot 2R. Staff reported that this access easement question might have a "domino" effect in the approval of the re -platted subdivision and the approval of the site plan. Mr. Johns responded that, in his opinion, there did not appear to be an access problem. There is a platted easement across Mr. Keathley's property and the Bill of Assurance provides the easement for access to the property without`restriction. The applicant, he concluded, is clearly entitled to use the access easement and the property, Lot 2 or Lot 2R, has the required access. Mr. Jess Keathley indicated that his company is the owner of Lot 1, Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition; that he was the grantor of the easement for the use of Pleasant Valley Living Center; that traffic is currently a problem and this problem will be made worse by the addition of an additional facility; that there is one ingress point for his property and this is the shared access to Pleasant Valley Living Center. He added that he did not object to the planned development, but that he had not received notification of the previous actions involving re -subdivision and site plan review. He had only recently been advised of the plans after he received notification of the current request. He realized that the access question may be a civil matter between himself and the owners of Lot 2. He requested a deferral until the next Planning Commission hearing to allow him a chance to review the proposal and to meet with the owners of Lot 2. Chairman Walker asked for clarification of the notification mix-up. Staff reported that in the two previous matters (the Preliminary Plat hearing and the Site Plan review hearing), Beach Abstract had furnished the applicants the required certified list of adjoining property owners and the applicants had met the notification requirement. The list of owners showed another entity as owner of the land Mr. Keathley apparently owns, but the applicants had met the required notification procedure on those previous matters. In the current request, Mr. Keathly had been notified as required. Mr. Johns reiterated that for the current matter, notification was not an issue and that delving into alternative means of gaining access would involve a third party for whom he could not 4 June 1, 1993 SIIBDIVI ION FILE No.: 2-447 - speak. He insisted that his clients were facin gaining Planning Commission a g a deadline for Purchase contract and an unwillingness due to the expiration of a to extend the agreement. on the part of the seller Commission members asked for as outstandin from Clarification on other issues shown reported that gall other matttterssion had beenittee sat satisfactorily and would recommend a meeting. Staff approval of sfactorily resolved access issues remaining, the application if there were no Deputy City Attorne question and Y Giles stated that he had reviewed the access saw no legal issue which would keep from approving the applicaissu; p the Commission Platted and filed of record and meets sthe access easement is Of the ordinance• the technical requirements The motion was made and seconded to a Pleasant Valley Living Center Ii. approve the Site Plan for the 2 The motion passed with nine (9) ayes, no nays, and two ( ) absent. 5