Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5535 Staff AnalysisJanuary 14, 1992 ITEM NO.: 14 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Saint Michael's Episcopal Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z-5535) 12401 Cantrell Road Sam Peck and Associates, Inc./ R. Wingfield Martin, Agent A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow use of the property for a church. The site is located immediately east and south of 12417 Cantrell Road, a state highway. 2. Com atibilit with Nei hborhood A number of different uses are located within this area of the City. Because of such a variety from residential to commercial and office, the proposed church is compatible with other uses in the area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The applicant will provide on-site access drive, three lanes, measuring 36 feet, off of Cantrell Road. The applicant will exceed the number of parking spaces that are required even if the front three or four are lost. 4. ScreenincL and Buffers The applicant plans to use most of the mature vegetation which is on the site. Bob Brown has indicated more landscaping is needed in order to meet the ordinance requirement. The applicant has agreed to provide the additional landscaping. 5. City Engineer Comments Construction of a sidewalk to the Cantrell Road frontage is required. Also, the excavation and detention ordinance will apply. Little Rock Municipal Water Works is requiring on-site fire protection. 1 January 14, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1fl Continued 6. Analysis The proposal is for the construction of Saint Michael Episcopal Church in two phases. (Note: Foot print of buildable area on sketch.) All utilities will be underground with particular attention being made to minimize the movement of dirt. There will be two Sunday morning church services along with an evening service on Wednesday. At each service, a kindergarten class will be available. The church will also maintain an office which will be open daily. 7. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit per the engineering requirements being met. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 19, 1991) Neither the applicant or a representative was in attendance. This item was sent on to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 14, 1992) The applicant was represented by Wingfield Martin. There were several people in attendance with concerns. Mr. Martin stated that Saint Michael Episcopal Church formed a search committee to locate a new site for the church. In the process, the church employed Tom Farrell, an architect, who is very much conscious of the environment. Mr. Farrell then spoke to the Commission and presented a revised plan for the development. He stated that the plan indicates the basic footprint of the area which will be the church structure. The other areas represented the existing vegetation, parking, proposed landscaping and the existing lake. Mr. Farrell stated that the church has a small congregation and some members are not expected to be part of the mega church. He also said that the timeframe to build the new church will take approximately five years from the date the property is purchased. Mr. Farrell then asked if the people in opposition could be heard. Harrigan Wortsmith then spoke regarding his concerns. Mr. Wortsmith stated that he owns all of the property to the north of this site. He said that he is opposed to the development, and he also asked several questions: (1) what is the existing zoning? (2) Was the street going to be a dedicated street at anytime? (3) Is there a problem with the water drainage in the whole area? OA January 14, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 Continued Andre Simon stated his concerns regarding the development. Mr. Simon stated that when he purchased the lot across from the proposed site, he was promised that all of the property surrounding the lake would be residential. Now, a church is being proposed, which will change the zoning on the property. If the church is allowed, then he recommended the site plan be changed to indicate more landscaping in the area noted for the parking lot and less lighting. Gene Pfeifer then spoke representing Don Howman who lives immediately south of the site. Mr. Pfeifer read a letter from Mr. Howman whose concerns were (1) a parking lot fronting his home, (2) landscaping and (3) the increase danger of accidents because of the traffic problems on Highway 10. The Chairman then asked Jerry Gardner, City Engineer, to address some of the concerns which were presented. Mr. Gardner stated that in reference to the drainage the only thing he could say is Mr. Wortsmith's observation is probably valid. However, at this time, there is just not enough information readily available. Staff was then asked if the street was a dedicated street. Staff responded by saying that the street is not a dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Farrell then addressed the concerns which were presented. In regards to the drainage from the adjacent property owner located across from this site, anything the church does will decrease the amount of flow from the church site. The church will do things to decrease their liability rather than increase it. He went on to say the lighting for the parking lot is really not a major concern for the church. As long as the entrance and exit is properly lighted there should be no need for additional lighting. A security gate is also being considered when the church is not in use. Mr. Farrell continued by saying that a Conditional Use Permit is being requested because of its restrictions. If the church expands more than what the footprint has allotted for, then the church will have to relocate. Mr. Farrell then stated that screening the parking lot from the adjacent property owners should not be a problem. This site is one of the higher elevations in the whole neighborhood. Therefore, there will not be anyone who will look down on the parking. The landscaping area that will be done in and around the parking area will provide additional protection for the neighbors. The church's intent is to make the development blend in as much as possible with the neighborhood. The site was chosen for simply this reason and because of the site's natural beauty. 3 January 14, 1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 Continued Mr. Farrell then said, at staff's request, the entrance has been widen to three lanes. There will be a left only turning lane. The entrance onto Cantrell Road is aligned with the adjacent property owner's entrance. There is a large setback due to the changes in the right-of-way at this location. In terms of the grading and cut of the lot, the shape of the building to the back is relative to the actual grading. Site grading studies have been done and to the rear of the site is the steepest point. This project will meet and exceed the requirement of the excavation and detention ordinance. One commissioner stated that a lot of the neighborhood concerns are preliminary things that should have been done prior to the filing of this application. The representative for the applicant responded by saying a meeting was held with staff and all of the concerns mentioned today were discussed. Jim Lawson, the Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated the Commission had a good point. He went on to say the manner in which the process is done does not require the applicant to submit the expensive, engineering detailed work at the time of filing. If the application is approved, then the applicant will begin to do the engineering under the direction of Jerry Gardner. The applicant then has to guarantee that the development will not impact the adjacent property owners. A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding drainage, traffic, landscaping, lighting, excavation and detention as well as height of the structure. A motion was then made to approve the Conditional Use Permit with no waivers of the standard Ordinance requirements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all of the people which spoke at the public hearing are to be notified and have an opportunity to review the plan before the building permit is issued. It was explained that staff would be the mediator if any conflicts arise. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. 4