Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5682 Staff AnalysisOctober 5, 1993 ITEM B FILE Z - NAME: LOCATI Q1+� QWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Country Club of Little Rock - Conditional Use Permit 4200 Country Club Blvd. Country Club of Little Rock/ H. Terry Rasco, Agent A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an indoor tennis facility, several new golf holes and a rest room facility on the existing, R-2 zoned, 238 acre Country Club of Little Rock property. The Country Club of Little Rock is generally located at the east end of Country Club Blvd., north of Cantrell Road and south of the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right-of-way. 2. gompatibility with NeighbQrhood The Country Club of Little Rock has long been a fixture in the Heights neighborhood. Although adjacent to several single family residential neighborhoods, the property of the Country Club is primarily open space and park -like in appearance, devoted mostly to the large open areas of the golf course. The only aspect of this proposed project which could have a possible impact on the adjacent residences is the indoor tennis facility. It will be a large structure and may have a visual impact on those residences to the south and southwest. The tennis facility itself is compatible with the continued use of the property as a country club with its associated facilities. With proper attention to screening this structure, the proposed improvements should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. 3. Qn-Site Drives and Parking Associated with the indoor tennis facility is a new 36 space parking lot which, when added to the number of existing spaces on the Country Club grounds, should be sufficient to October 5, 1993 SpBUIVISIQi ITEM B n in FILE Z- 2 meet the club's parking needs. Parking lot lighting should be low level, directional, aimed away from adjacent residences. 4. Screening and Buffers The majority of the new tennis facility and parking lot will be screened from residences to the west by the existing landscaping and by the opaque windscreen on the west perimeter of the existing outdoor tennis courts. Due to the severe change in elevation, it appears that the south wall of the proposed tennis facility will be 40± feet tall and will have a visual impact on residences to the south and southwest. Increased plantings, particularly of fast growing evergreen trees and shrubs, should be considered on the south and southwest of the new tennis facility to provide a screen and lessen the visual impact of the structure. The new parking lot will have to comply with the City's Landscape Ordinance. 5. gity Enginegr Comments No comments 6. Utility Comment -- Contact Little Rock Municipal Water Works to discuss how water service will be provided to the proposed rest room facility. 7. An�-s Staff feels that the proposed improvements are an appropriate land use on the existing Country Club of Little Rock property. Of the improvements proposed, staff's concern centers on the indoor tennis facility and the new parking lot. Due to the proximity of the residences south and southwest, attention must be given to providing adequate screening and buffering. The applicant should provide greater detail of plans to lessen the visual impact of this structure on the adjacent residences. 8. Staff Recommends iou Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance and screening and buffering to the south and southwest of the proposed 2 October 5, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ • S (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-55$_2 tennis facility to lessen the visual impact on the adjacent residential properties. BDIVTSION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) Terry Rasco was present representing the Country Club of Little Rock. Mr. King, the manager of the club, was also present. Staff presented the item and outlined the following items of concern. 1. Provide a detailed screening plan for the parking lot and other new use areas. 2e Provide a cross-section through the site showing building elevations. 3. Show site treatment on cuts and fills. 4. Provide details of landscape/buffer plan. Discussion centered on the possible visual impact of the proposed tennis center on adjacent residences. Mr. Rasco stated that the existing tennis screen, on the west side of the existing outdoor tennis courts, would provide adequate screening for those residences across Country Club Lane. He further stated that there is an existing area of woods to the southwest of the proposed building which would provide some screening. Mr. Rasco informed the Committee that due to the required cut into the hillside for construction of the tennis facility, the actual ridge line of the building will be 35 feet or less above grade. He indicated that the selection of materials and colors for the building will be such as to lessen the visual impact. A committee member questioned the proposed lighting for the parking lot. It was decided that any lighting should be low level, directional lighting aimed away from adjacent residences. Mr. Rasco was asked to provide a cross-section of the site and he agreed to do so. After further discussion, the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. 3 October 5, 1993 BDIVI I ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO,: Z-5682 PLANNING CQMMIOEIQN ACTIO : (OUNE 1, 1993 ) Chairman Walker stepped down, prior to discussion of this item. Vice Chairman Chachere presided. Terry Rasco was present representing the Country Club of Little Rock. There were numerous objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance and screening and buffering to the south and southwest of the proposed tennis facility to lessen the visual impact on the adjacent residential properties. Terry Rasco then addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that he felt the proposed use was compatible with the neighborhood and the continued use of the property as a country club. He stated that the primary issue was mitigation of the visual impact of the proposed tennis facility on adjacent properties. Mr. Rasco stated that he had recently visited Newport, Rhode Island and had observed a tennis center at that location. He presented a photograph of the Rhode Island facility and explained how he would use similar materials and building design to lessen the impact of the proposed tennis structure. Mr. Rasco presented several photos and drawings showing proposed landscaping treatment and building design and color that he felt would mitigate the visual impact of the structure on adjacent properties. Mr. Rasco continued by explaining that the Country Club of Little Rock had agreed to rebuild an existing rock wall along Country Club Lane. The Country Club would also heavily landscape along Country Club Lane, including shrubbery and trees to help screen the existing facilities as well as any proposed improvements. Mr. Rasco stated that the Country Club had agreed to repair and restore the rock wall, but will do the landscaping only if the proposed tennis center is built. Mr. Herbert Rule, of 2000 Country Club Lane, then addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed tennis center. Mr. Rule stated that he was representing several neighbors who were also in opposition to the proposed tennis center. He stated that he felt the notice requirement had not been properly met. Mr. Rule then presented a series of slides showing the negative impact which he felt the proposed tennis center could have on the adjacent residences. 4 October 5, 1993 SUBDIVISION TTRM NO.: . NO, Yf_r. Joe Ford, of 2100 Country Club Lane, then spoke in opposition to the proposed tennis center. Mrs. George Rose Smith, of 4300 Cantrell Road, spoke next in opposition to the proposal. She stated that she had received no notice of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Carney informed the Commission that the applicant had received a certified list of adjacent property owners from a licensed abstract company, and had sent the required notice based on that list. Terry Rasco then addressed the Commission and stated that once he had been made aware that some adjacent property owners had not been notified, he had hand -delivered notices. Mr. Robert Batton, representing Lois Park of #4 Cantrell Road, then spoke in opposition to the proposed tennis center. Mr. Batton questioned the height of the structure as viewed from the south, and stated that he felt it would have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Rasco responded to the Commission and stated that the height to the ridgeline of the tennis center would be 35 feet. He further stated that due to the topography of the land, the south side of the proposed tennis center would be higher. Mr. Batton continued by stating that the rear side of the proposed tennis center would be approximately 84 feet high, including the foundation. He presented a sketch showing the proposed structure and stated that the building will create an eyesore. He continued by stating that the proposed construction would create a drainage problem and could possibly cause erosion of the hillside. Mr. Batton stated that the Country Club membership had not yet approved the project. Susan Mayes, of 2021 Beechwood, addressed the Commission. She stated that she felt the proposed parking lot and driveway would not be adequate for the tennis center's needs. She further stated that she fears the Country Club will come back later with requests for more parking lots and driveways. Ms. Mayes stated that she felt the proposed tennis center would create traffic congestion in the neighborhood. Ann Bemis, of 1921 Country Club Lane, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. Elizabeth Patterson, of 2422 Country Club Lane, then addressed the Commission in support of the proposed tennis center. She informed the Commission that she is on the Country Club's tennis 0 October 5, 1993 pill -an _I ITEM NO.; B (Continued) FILE NQ..;_ Z-56$2 committee. Ms. Patterson stated that the location was chosen due to its proximity to the existing tennis courts and parking. Herbert Rule then presented the Commission with a letter from Mike Long, a nearby property owner, in opposition to the proposed tennis center. He again questioned the propriety of the notices and stated that the proposed tennis center would be visible from Cantrell Road and would be an eyesore. Mr. Rule then asked that this item be deferred until several questions are resolved. 1. Can a different site be considered? 2. Is the proposed structure a tennis center or tennis center and health club? 3. What is the effect on adjacent residences? Commissioner Woods then asked if the application indicated a proposed health club. Mr. Carney informed the Commission that it was his understanding that there would be a couple of pieces of exercise equipment, such as exercise bicycles, but that there is no proposed health club. In response to a question from a commissioner, Mr. Rasco stated that he did not know when the Country Club of Little Rock would vote on the proposal. Mr. Rasco also stated that there were several parking lots on the Country Club's site which would be available for use by patrons of the tennis center. Mr. Rasco informed the Commission that although the building is 60 feet from the south property line, it will actually be much further than that from the residences themselves. Commissioner Woods then stated that he had a problem with the proposed location on the Country Club site. Mr. Rasco stated that this was the best available to save trees and be in proximity to the existing tennis courts. Mr. Rasco then presented a cross-section of the property and stated that existing vegetation will hide the foundation of the tennis center, but that the building will be visible above the trees. Commissioner Willis asked if the Country Club would consider other sites. Mr. Rasco responded that he would look at other sites if directed to by the Country Club or by the Planning Commission. 6 October 5, 1993 SIIBDIVISIOH ITEM B n in FILE Z-5682 Mr. Batton then addressed the Commission again, and stated that he felt landscaping would not hide the building. He stated that natural shrubbery and vegetation will not screen the structure from November through late March. Gerald Ring, Manager of the Country Club of Little Rock, then addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He stated that they had looked at numerous sites, but chose this one due to its access to the existing facilities and clubhouse as well as for security purposes. Commissioner Chachere then asked if the applicant would consider a deferral to allow for a meeting with the neighborhood. Mr. King responded that he did not have the authorization to request a deferral. Commissioner Oleson asked when the full membership would vote on the proposed tennis center. Mr. King responded that it would be perhaps in September. Commissioner Nicholson then made a motion to defer the item to July 13 to allow all parties to come together to discuss the proposal. The vote on the motion to defer was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 24, 1993) The applicant was not present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Committee that there had been no further action on this item since the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 13, 1993) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, informed the Commission that the applicant had written, requesting that this item be deferred to the August 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to meet with people in the neighborhood. Mutually agreeable times have been difficult to arrange due to conflicting vacation schedules. 7 October 5, 1993 F411:1PAW• ITEM NO, • B (Continued) FILE NO.: 2--5682 As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was deferred to the August 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 5, 1993) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that there had been no information received regarding any neighborhood meeting. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution with the notation that withdrawal may be appropriate if there is no further contact. Fa -00 Nlkml• i X fIWWWOUCWE The applicant was not present. (AUGUST 24, 1993) There were no objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, informed the Commission that the applicant had written requesting a deferral to the October 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting to allow more time to meet with people in the neighborhood. Mutually agreeable times have been difficult to arrange due to conflicting summer schedules. As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved for deferral to the October 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. This is the applicant's second and final request for deferral. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 16, 1993) The applicant, Terry Rasco, was present. Mr. Gerald Ring, Manager of the Country Club of Little Rock, was also present. Mr. Rasco reported to the Committee that the proposed indoor tennis center had been reduced in size by 25%, by eliminating one of the courts and the exercise area. He stated that the building had been relocated 110 feet farther to the east, thus expanding the distance between the building an the adjacent single family homes. Mr. Rasco presented drawings showing the new building location and elevations showing the relationship of the building to the adjacent properties. 8 October 5, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: _H (Continued) FILE_NO.: Z-55$2 Mr. Rasco stated that there had been meetings with representative property owners from the neighborhood, but that he could not report if opposition still exists. Mr. Rasco informed the committee that he had amended the application to request that the golf course expansion and restroom facility be separated from the indoor tennis facility for the purpose of allowing the Planning Commission to vote on the items separately. A committee member questioned whether the Country Club had authorized this proposal. He was advised by Mr. King that the Board of Directors of the Country Club had authorized the club's tennis committee to pursue this action. Once the conditional use permit is approved, the committee would then present this project to the Board who would then present it to the full club membership for approval. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 5, 1993) Prior to discussion of this item, Chairman Walker stepped down. Vice Chairman Chachere presided. Terry Rasco was present representing the Country Club of Little Rock. No individuals present identified themselves as objectors. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval. Mr. Carney informed the Commission that since the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had revised the site plan to the extent that the proposed indoor tennis center had been reduced in size by 25% by eliminating one of the courts and the exercise area. The building itself has been relocated 110 feet farther to the east, increasing the distance between the building and the adjacent single family homes. Mr. Carney also informed the Commission that the applicant had requested that the proposed golf course expansion and restroom facility be separated from the indoor tennis facility for the purpose of allowing the Planning Commission to vote on the items separately. Terry Rasco then addressed the Commission. He requested that the application for the indoor tennis facility be withdrawn, without October 5, 1993 5 BDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Continued FILE Nn.: Z-560') prejudice. Mr. Rasco stated that the neighbors had submitted a list of conditions which the Country Club would have to agree to prior to the neighbors agreeing to cease opposition to the tennis center. Mr. Rasco continued by stating that the list had been received too late for the Tennis Committee and Country Club Board to act on it prior to this meeting. He then asked the Commission to approve the conditional use permit for the golf course and restroom facility. Vice Chairman Chachere asked if anyone was present in opposition to the proposal as amended by Mr. Rasco. There were none. A motion was then made to approve the separation of the application into two parts, withdrawal of the tennis center without prejudice and approval of the golf course expansion and restroom facility. The vote was 6 ayes, 1 no and 4 absent. The application was approved as amended. 10