Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4942 Staff AnalysisDecember 15, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: St. Paul United Methodist Church, Conditional Use Permit (Z-4942) The East side of Durwood Road just North of Pine Valley Drive (2223 Durwood Road) St. Paul United Methodist Church/Howard Atkins To remove existing single family structures located at 2205 and 2209 Durwood Road and to construct a parking lot (37 'spaces) on 0.34 acres of land that is zoned "R-4." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (Durwood Road). 1 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is abutted by, church and office uses located to the north, single family uses located to the south and east, and a duplex located to the west. The staff feels the proposed use will potentially be an improvement in the area since it will provide the first off-street parking for this church. The greatest impact will be to the property located to the south. The staff feels that with proper screening, the provision of off-street parking will be an overall improvement in the area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parki The existing church site currently has no off-street December 15, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued parking. This proposal contains 37 spaces (100 required by ordinance) and two access drives on Durwood Road. 4. Screening and Buffers The proposal contains landscape areas designed to meet the City Landscape Ordinance requirements. \ 5. Analysis The staff feels that this proposal will be beneficial to the neighborhood in that the church currently has no off-street parking. The property that abuts to the south is likely to receive the greatest impact from this project. Staff feels that the applicant has recognized this by allowing an 8' landscaped buffer on the south line. Staff also feels that additional measures can be taken to reduce the impact and recommends that a 6' screening fence be constructed ' along the south property line beginning 15' from the west property line and continuing east to the southeast property corner. Finally, the staff feels that a 15' landscape area (setback) should be allowed from Durwood Road. 6. City Engineer Comment (1) Provide signage to designate the southernmost access drive as one-way in and the northernmost access drive as one-way out; and (2) Stormwater detention required. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes a 15' landscape area along Durwood Road, a 6' screening fence along the south property line as recommended above, and ingress/egress labeled as recommended by the City Engineer; and (2) comply with City Engineer comments numbered (1) and (2). December 15, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The staff stated that Arkansas Power and Light had stated that any planting in the 10' utility easement located on the east property line would be subject to trimming by Arkansas Power and Light. There was no further discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that they had received one letter of opposition (Kenneth R. and Joyce Taylor), one letter requesting information about stormwater runoff implications (Mrs. Ravenel B. Brown), and one petition (eight names) expressing reservations about the ;project until they had an opportunity to review the proposal. The staff stated that Mr. W.M. Qualls, representing the petitioners, had been provided with a.copy of the proposed plan. The staff also stated that the primary concern of the petitioners was a stagnant drainage area to the east of the existing church building and the timing of the completion of the new construction. Mrs. Ravenel Brown also spoke about possible drainage problems. The City Engineer stated that the applicant would be required to provide for on-site water detention which would be good up to a one in twenty-five year standard. The applicant submitted a revised site plan that met staff requirements and also agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant.