Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4650-B Staff AnalysisMay 9, 2002 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: NAME: Parkway Place Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 300 Parkway Place Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Parkway Place Baptist Church/Howard David PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a new, 40 -space parking lot and a 24,000 square foot education addition on this existing, R-2 Single Family residential zoned church site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: 2 The property is located on the southwest corner of Parkway Place Drive and West Markham Street, one block south of Chenal Parkway. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of this application. The church is located at the northern edge of a single family neighborhood. Single family homes are located south of the site. Multiple non-residential uses, including offices, a fire station, a neighborhood swimming pool, a car wash, a funeral home and undeveloped commercial properties are located east, north and west of the site. It is the relationship of the abutting single family residences to the proposed parking lot that concerns staff. The parking lot intrudes beyond the bulk of the church site into the residential neighborhood. Since the church has over twice as many parking spaces as required by Code, staff questions the necessity of constructing this parking lot in an area that currently serves as a buffer between this nonresidential use and the abutting residences. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The church currently has a 309 space parking lot with single driveways onto Parkway Place Drive and West Markham Street. This application includes the addition of a new 40 space parking lot and a one-way drop-off. The sanctuary May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4650-B has a seating capacity of 600 persons, requiring 150 parking spaces, based on the Ordinance Standard of one parking space for every 4 seats in the main worship area. The church currently has more than twice as many parking spaces as required by Code. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The plan submitted does not allow for the 1,048 square feet of landscaping required within the interior of the proposed parking lot. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged or missing in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Mark drop-off as a one-way driveway. 6. UTILITY. FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Concern regarding proposed drive off Markham; SWBT may have cable that will need lowering based on excavating levels. Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments received. 2 May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont. FILE NO.: CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 7, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding signage, site lighting, dumpster location, seating capacity in the main worship area, fencing and roof pitch and materials. Staff stated the proposed driveway must be labeled "one-way" and signage installed indicating such. Staff asked if there would be a canopy erected over the drop-off area along the new driveway. The applicant indicated there would be a canopy and it would be shown on a revised site plan. Landscaping comments were presented and it was noted that additional interior landscaping must be provided. Public Works Comments were presented. The applicant was directed to submit a revised cover letter and site plan addressing the issues and concerns raised by staff. The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: Parkway Place Baptist Church occupies the R-2 zoned property located at 300 Parkway Place Drive. The church facility consists of a 13,250 square foot, 600 seat sanctuary, a 13,700 square foot education wing and a 309 space parking lot. The church proposes the addition of a 24,000, two-story education wing addition and a 40 space parking lot. The addition will house children's and youth classes. A variance is requested to allow a building height of 44 feet. The Code has a height limit of 35 feet in the R-2 district. A one-way, drop-off driveway is proposed off of Kirby/West Markham, in front of the addition. An 8 foot tall, wood fence is proposed along the south perimeter of the new parking lot, to provide screening for the adjacent residential properties. Staff is supportive of aspects of the proposed development, but not all. Allowing the classroom addition is reasonable. It is located within the defined church site and meets the Ordinance setbacks. The height variance is relatively minor. Directly across from the area of the addition are a neighborhood swimming pool, fire station and undeveloped C-3 zoned property. The addition is located some 90t feet away from the rear of the abutting residential properties. The proposed one-way drop-off driveway in front of the addition also seems appropriate to staff for the same reasons. K May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: ,Z -4650-B Staff does have concerns about the proposed 40 space parking lot to be located south of the new addition. This parking lot pushes the envelope of the church site further into the abutting residential neighborhood. To construct the parking lot will require the clearing and paving of an undeveloped, tree covered lot that serves as a buffer between the church and the abutting residential properties. The church currently has a 309 space parking lot. The Code requires 150 parking spaces for this church. No changes are proposed in the seating capacity of the worship area/sanctuary. While recognizing that churches are an appropriate element within a residential neighborhood, staff questions the necessity or desirability of constructing the proposed 40 space parking lot. In staff's opinion, the negative impact of the parking lot on the abutting residential properties outweighs the necessity or advantage of constructing it. The applicant did submit a revised site plan and cover letter on March 27, 2002, in response to questions raised at Subdivision Committee. The comments are reflected in the analysis above. The revised site plan shows a canopy over the entrance on the drop-off driveways and the driveway being clearly labeled one-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to construct the two-story education addition and one-way drop-off driveway subject to compliance with staff comments and conditions noted in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this report. Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance. Staff does not recommend approval of the request to construct the proposed 40 space parking lot. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the April 11, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairperson placed this item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 11, 2002 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 21, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff informed the Committee that the comments and issues were the same as those raised at the 0 May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4550-B February 7, 2002 committee meeting. The applicant had requested deferral of the item prior to responding to those issues. Mr. McGetrick stated there was, at that time, some question as to whether the item would be pursued, as originally proposed. He stated he would have responses to all questions and issues to staff by March 27, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 11, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to complete. the required notification. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the May 9, 2002 commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral as recommended. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. (MAY 9, 2002) Patrick McGetrick, Engineer, and Steve Elliott, Architect, were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the application, less and except the parking lot. Mr. McGetrick and Mr. Elliott each briefly described particulars about the project and explained why they felt the parking lot was needed. Mr. Elliott stated the church had conducted a study which showed it needed parking at the ratio of 2.1 persons per vehicle_ Mr. McGetrick stated the church had met with the neighborhood association and the Association was in support of the application. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated staff was now in support of the application, in its entirety, in light of the neighborhood association's action. A motion was made to approve the application, less and except the parking lot. The vote was 5 ayes, 2 noes and 4 absent. The motion failed. A motion was then made to approve the application, with the parking lot. The vote was 4 ayes, 3 noes and 4 absent. The motion failed. 5 FILE NO.: NAME: Parkway Place Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 300 Parkway Place Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Parkway Place Baptist Church/Howard David PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a new, 40 -space parking lot and a 24,000 square foot education addition on this existing, R-2 Single Family residential zoned church site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1 2 3. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the southwest corner of Parkway Place Drive and West Markham Street, one block south of Chenal Parkway. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of this application. The church is located at the northern edge of a single family neighborhood. Single family homes are located south of the site. Multiple non-residential uses, including offices, a fire station, a neighborhood swimming pool, a car wash, a funeral home and undeveloped commercial properties are located east, north and west of the site. It is the relationship of the abutting single family residences to the proposed parking lot that concerns staff. The parking lot intrudes beyond the bulk of the church site into the residential neighborhood. Since the church has over twice as many parking spaces as required by Code, staff questions the necessity of constructing this parking lot in an area that currently serves as a buffer between this nonresidential use and the abutting residences. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The church currently has a 309 space parking lot with single driveways onto Parkway Place Drive and West Markham Street. This application includes the addition of a new 40 space parking lot and a one-way drop-off. The sanctuary has a seating capacity of 600 persons, requiring 150 parking spaces, based on the Ordinance Standard of one parking space for every 4 seats in the main FILE NO.: _ Z -4650-B (Co worship area. The church currently has more than twice as many parking spaces as required by Code. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The plan submitted does not allow for the 1,048 square feet of landscaping required within the interior of the proposed parking lot. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged or missing in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Mark drop-off as a one-way driveway. 6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Concern regarding proposed drive off Markham; SWBT may have cable that will need lowering based on excavating levels. Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional meter(s) are needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments received. CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4650-B (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 7, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding signage, site lighting, dumpster location, seating capacity in the main worship area, fencing and roof pitch and materials. Staff stated the proposed driveway must be labeled "one-way" and signage installed indicating such. Staff asked if there would be a canopy erected over the drop-off area along the new driveway. The applicant indicated there would be a canopy and it would be shown on a revised site plan. Landscaping comments were presented and it was noted that additional interior landscaping must be provided. Public Works Comments were presented. The applicant was directed to submit a revised cover letter and site plan addressing the issues and concerns raised by staff. The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: Parkway Place Baptist Church occupies the R-2 zoned property located at 300 Parkway Place Drive. The church facility consists of a 13,250 square foot, 600 seat sanctuary, a 13,700 square foot education wing and a 309 space parking lot. The church proposes the addition of a 24,000, two-story education wing addition and a 40 space parking lot. The addition will house children's and youth classes. A variance is requested to allow a building height of 44 feet. The Code has a height limit of 35 feet in the R-2 district. A one-way, drop-off driveway is proposed off of KirbyANest Markham, in front of the addition. An 8 foot tall, wood fence is proposed along the south perimeter of the new parking lot, to provide screening for the adjacent residential properties. Staff is supportive of aspects of the proposed development, but not all. Allowing the classroom addition is reasonable. It is located within the defined church site and meets the Ordinance setbacks. The height variance is relatively minor. Directly across from the area of the addition are a neighborhood swimming pool, fire station and undeveloped C-3 zoned property. The addition is located some 90± feet away from the rear of the abutting residential properties. The proposed one-way drop-off driveway in front of the addition also seems appropriate to staff for the same reasons. Staff does have concerns about the proposed 40 space parking lot to be located south of the new addition. This parking lot pushes the envelope of the church site further into the abutting residential neighborhood. To construct the parking lot will require the clearing and paving of an undeveloped, tree covered lot that serves as a buffer between the church and the abutting residential properties. The church currently has 3 FILE NO.: Z -4650-B Cont. a 309 space parking lot. The Code requires 150 parking spaces for this church. No changes are proposed in the seating capacity of the worship area/sanctuary. While recognizing that churches are an appropriate element within a residential neighborhood, staff questions the necessity or desirability of constructing the proposed 40 space parking lot. In staffs opinion, the negative impact of the parking lot on the abutting residential properties outweighs the necessity or advantage of constructing it. The applicant did submit a revised site plan and cover letter on March 27, 2002, in response to questions raised at Subdivision Committee. The comments are reflected in the analysis above. The revised site plan shows a canopy over the entrance on the drop-off driveways and the driveway being clearly labeled one-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to construct the two-story education addition and one-way drop-off driveway subject to compliance with staff comments and conditions noted in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this report. Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance. Staff does not recommend approval of the request to construct the proposed 40 space parking lot. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 28, 2002) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested that this application be deferred to the April 11, 2002 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairperson placed this item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 11, 2002 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 21, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff informed the Committee that the comments and issues were the same as those raised at the February 7, 2002 committee meeting. The applicant had requested deferral of the item prior to responding to those issues. Mr. McGetrick stated there was, at that time, some question as to whether the item would be pursued, as originally proposed. He stated he would have responses to all questions and issues to staff by March 27, 2002. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4650-B (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 11, 2002) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to complete the required notification. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the May 9, 2002 commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral as recommended. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 2002) Patrick McGetrick, Engineer, and Steve Elliott, Architect, were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the application, less and except the parking lot. Mr. McGetrick and Mr. Elliott each briefly described particulars about the project and explained why they felt the parking lot was needed. Mr. Elliott stated the church had conducted a study which showed it needed parking at the ratio of 2.1 persons per vehicle. Mr. McGetrick stated the church had met with the neighborhood association and the Association was in support of the application. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated staff was now in support of the application, in its entirety, in light of the neighborhood association's action. A motion was made to approve the application, less and except the parking lot. The vote was 5 ayes, 2 noes and 4 absent. The motion failed. A motion was then made to approve the application, with the parking lot. The vote was 4 ayes, 3 noes and 4 absent. The motion failed. 5