Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4550-B Staff AnalysisAugust 24, 1993 ITEM I FILE - NAME: FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH OFFICES AND CLASSROOM BUILDING -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of Hinson Road, east of Napa Valley Drive, at 12201 Hinson Road DEVELOPER: MSW John A. Rees LEWIS, ELLIOTT & STUDER REES DEVELOPMENT 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 104 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72212 223-9302 223-2228 AREA: 4.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LQT,: 1 FT, NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REOUESTEI]: None TATE.ME T OF PR P AL Church offices and classrooms The applicant proposes the development of a 4.3 acre site for a church offices and classroom facility, with parking for 275 vehicles. Proposed is a two-story building containing a total_ area of 40,000 square feet, paved parking with access drives, and both landscape and natural wooded buffer areas. A single access off Hinson Road at an existing curb -cut is designated. A. PR P AL RE E T• Site Plan review by the Planning Commission is requested for the development of a 4.3 acre site in a tract which is zoned 0-2. A 40,000 total square foot, two-story building is proposed which is to be utilized for church offices and classrooms. Parking for 275 vehicles is planned. The site plan designates areas for landscaping, and designates areas along the rear, at the south-east corner, and along a portion of the west property line as areas where existing wooded areas are to remain as buffers. B. EXISTING CONDITIQNZ: The site is presently zoned 0-2. It is partially cleared, with foundation remains of former residences along the front of the property. The rear of the property remains tree- August 24, 1993 SVBDIVISIQN ITEM 1 n in FILE Z-4 -B covered and with undergrowth. There is a fairly significant rise in topography at the rear of the site. The properties on both sides of the site are zoned 0-2. The rear of the property borders a residential area in a PRD. Across Hinson Road are residences along the Pleasant Valley Country Club golf course in an R-2 zoning district. C. E I ERI TILITY COMMENTS: Little Rock Engineering Division indicates that the Excavation and Detention Ordinance are applicable to this development. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. It is reported that there is an 8" main in the easement along the east property line which can be taped for the fire hydrant. Wastewater responds that sewer is available from a main along the east property line. There is a 15 foot easement along that property line which needs to be shown on the site plan. Arkansas Power and Light Co. responds that an easement will be required for their use. Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. approved the site plan as submitted. D. I E LE AI, TE H I AL DE I The site plan must be based on a final plat showing only one lot. The old division line of the proposed two -lot subdivision must be removed. Submit a final plat for the single lot with all required easements indicated. Provide the required exhibit showing the topographic cross- section and the method to be employed to protect any resulting embankment at the south property line. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed use is in conformance with the approved zoning of the site, and only minimal requirements for exhibits and documentation remain outstanding. The site layout provides good on-site traffic circulation and landscaping areas. F. STAFF RECQMMENDATIQNS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the condition that the remaining exhibit(s) be submitted. 2 August 24, 1993 SuBnrvl S ION ITEM 1 (Continued) FILE Z-4 -B OUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 5, 1993) The applicant was present and outlined the request to the Committee. Staff presented the item, indicating that this is a revised request to one previously approved on the front half of the site at the April 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The discussion outline was reviewed with the applicant. Committee members asked for clarification on the proposed use of the building indicated on the site, and the applicant reported that various church offices and meeting -conference -seminar -classroom uses were intended at this time, but that construction of the building was not an immediate plan of the church; construction and use of the parking facility was the immediate intention. The Committee asked that the applicant furnish written clarification of the proposed use(s) of the building. The applicant indicated that this clarification would be furnished. The Committee referred the item to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 24, 1993) This item was recommended to the Commission for approval and was included on the Consent Agenda. However, a neighboring property owner was present at the hearing and wished the item heard on the regular agenda. Mr. Bud Finley, representing the applicant was present. Staff presented the proposal and the recommendation for approval. Staff indicated, however, that a verbal, then written, request had been received from Mr. George Plastiras, representing himself and three of his neighbors, asking that the hearing on this item be deferred until the neighbors returned from vacations. The Chair responded that the Commission allows the applicant to control his application, and asked the Church's representative if he wished to defer the hearing. Mr. Finley responded that he did not want a deferral; that the Church is outgrowing its current site and has contractors waiting to begin construction on this site. Mr. Plastiras then presented his objections. He indicated that he lives directly across Hinson Road from the site and he and his neighbors object to the development. He said that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Tom Curry, Dr. and Mrs. William Casey, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Brown, and himself and his wife. Each of these neighbors live on Valley Club Circle, across Hinson Road. Mr. Plastiras mentioned that he and his constituents have concerns about possible loitering on the site; that no provision is made for gates or fencing. He has concerns about the lighting on the site and the line -of -sight into the second floor of his and his neighbors' homes. He indicated that the neighbors have concerns about the uses to which the site might be put in the future; that the Church indicates that the use will be for adults, but that 3 August 24, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILL NO.: Z---4 there is no control of a change of use to accommodate children in the future. The Chair responded that the hearing is for a site plan review; that uses are not a issue as would be in a Conditional Use Permit review; that only issues related to the organization and layout of the site were applicable. Commissioners asked for clarification of the location of the objectors' homes. Again, it was indicated that the objectors live on Valley Club Circle, facing the golf course, with a 6 foot privacy fence along their back property line and Hinson Road between their back property line and the subject property. The distance from the proposed building and back of the objectors' homes would be about 300 feet. It was also related that there is street lighting on Hinson Road which would be closer to the objectors' homes than the lighting on the applicant's site. The discussion then returned to a discussion on the merits of deferring the hearing. Mr. Finley responded that other area buildings with large parking lots associated with them do not have gates and fences, yet do not have problems with loitering; and, that it would be the Chruch's position that such inappropriate activities would not be permitted to continue. He suggested that the Church has looked at the possibility of a security patrol and would consider these types of controls if a problem became apparent on any of their properties. Mr. Finley agreed that the lighting on the property would be directed inward and have a limited lighting pattern so that the effects of the lighting would not be felt by the neighbors across Hinson Road. Mr. Finley responded that he had not felt that neighbors who live across five lanes of traffic and a 100 foot right-of-way of a major arterial street, with the backs of their houses facing the proposed development would have any serious objections to the - proposal; therefore, he had not visited with them personally in the weeks prior to the hearing. A motion to defer the hearing was offered, but died for lack of a second. The motion was then made to approve the site plan as submitted. The motion carried with a vote of 10 ayes and 1 abstention. Mr. Plastiras was told that he had the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Board of Directors. 4