Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6149-A Staff AnalysisJanuary 6, 2000 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z -6149-A NAME: Fellowship Bible Church - Revised Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1801 and 1811 Napa Valley Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Lot 2, Charles & Mary Stein, Lot 3, Ray Dean & Ardyce Rainey/Fellowship Bible Church PROPOSAL: To revise a conditional use permit to increase an existing parking area by removing two existing single-family residential houses and expanding the parking area to property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, at 1801 and 1811 Napa Valley Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This site is located on the east side of Napa Valley Drive between Hinson Road and Rainwood Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is Zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and is totally surrounded by residential property. The area to the east is a Planned Residential District (PRD) containing single family residences, and across Napa Valley to the west are two churches. The applicant already has an "L" shaped parking area around the northwest corner of the PRD to the east. This proposal would enlarge the existing parking area. To the south is a single family house on a large lot. Staff believes this proposal could be compatible with the neighborhood with proper shielding of the low intensity lighting, limiting the time full lighting is on, and with a privacy fence screen around the perimeter abutting the residential property. January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A The Rainwood Cove Property Owners Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed additional parking area would be accessed from the north through the existing parking area which has one driveway onto Napa Valley. An'additional driveway is proposed from Napa Valley into the south end of the new parking area. This proposal would add 173 parking spaces for church use. The area would be gated and locked after 10 p.m. every evening. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The revised plan submitted meets the 20 foot full average buffer depth requirement along the southern perimeters. The proposed land use buffer along the eastern perimeter meets the 15 feet depth requirement when averaged out. Staff recommends the full 20 and 15 foot buffers be met due to the residential houses on adjoining properties. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the eastern and southern perimeters. This screen may normally be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings which grow to 6 feet in height within three years. However, staff feels the wooden privacy fence should be used in this case. The proposed revised plan does meet the 6% (4,775 sq. ft.) interior landscaping required within the vehicular use area by the Landscape Ordinance. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Plan elevation work with proposed Napa Valley Street Plan. b. Napa Valley Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right- of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 2 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A C. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. d. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development in -lieu for improvements. Requested due to pending City Project. e. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. f. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. g. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour intervals and 100 year flood elevation. h. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. i. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. j. Napa Valley has average daily traffic count of 11,000. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Wastewater: No sewer service required for this project. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. AR.Kr A : Approved as submitted. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free, 371-3752, at the fire department concerning turning radii. LATA: This site is near Route #8. Approved for transit purposes. 3 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to remove two existing residential houses and expand their existing parking by 173 spaces into the two adjacent lots south of their current parking area along Napa Valley Drive. The property is Zoned R=2, Single Family Residential. The applicant has agreed to a revised site plan which meets ordinance requirements, and stated that the proposed lighting would match the existing lighting in the northern most lot. The applicant may phase the construction to correspond to when the current residences would be vacated and to work with the City's project to widen Napa Valley Drive. The lot adjacent to the existing parking area would be available right away, but the rest of the time schedule for the second lot and the City's street project has not been specifically determined. Therefore, a detailed explanation of how the construction will proceed is not available. Staff recognizes that the proposed parking areas will have some impact on the abutting residential properties. We have worked with the applicant to incorporate in the design ways to mitigate the impact. The steps taken by the applicant include decreasing the number of parking spaces to allow for more green buffer on the south side of the property, agreeing to leave a full 25 feet on the south side and 15 feet on the east side. Therefore, considering what the applicant has done to mitigate the negative impact, and the benefit to the area to get traffic off the street and parked, Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this property. Proper use control, reduction in full time lighting, and buffering and screening should make this proposed parking area compatible with the neighborhood. 4 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. b. Comply with Public Works Comments. C. Comply with Fire Department requirements. d. Lock the southern entrance gate except for when the parking space is required. e. Install a mechanism to reduce the lighting in the new area to the absolute minimum to provide only security when the area is not needed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Randy Frazier and Mike Cruse were present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Staff had previously met with the applicant and discussed at length what was required to meet ordinance requirements. A revised plan was shown to the Committee which met most of those requirements. Staff explained that some additional buffer was required along the east side and that more interior landscaping would be required. Staff also noted that a minimum 6 foot high wood fence was preferred over a planted screening fence. The applicant stated that they plan to install dense vegetation, and added that they plan to use low intensity lighting which would match the existing lighting. Staff reiterated the need for a fence because it would be immediate and consistent. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 5 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FILE NO.: Z -6149-A (JANUARY 6, 2000) Randy Frazier, Attorney for Fellowship Bible Church, Mr. Dan Clinton, engineer for the project, and Mike Cruse, Campus Director for the church, were present representing the application. There were two people registered in favor of the item and four registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, began the discussion with two main planning issues. The first being what is the long term viability of the four houses left along Napa Valley Road north of Rainwood along this arterial roadway which is being widened to four lanes? The second issue would be what impact this parking lot development would have on the Rainwood Subdivision? Randy Frazier began the comments in favor of the application. He explained that the need for the parking was based on a Sunday attendance of 3200-3500 adults, with a parking capacity of only 1100 spaces, 250 which were on Pulaski Academy property and 50 on Smith Capital Management property. He stated that the result was that people were leaving and not attending services because they couldn't find a parking place. He mentioned that the church had signed a tentative contract to purchase lot 4, the next lot to the south, not with a plan to further extend the parking, but to have a built in buffer on church property with the next house to the south. Mr. Frazier and Mr. Cruse addressed other options they had explored. One was to build a parking garage on church property on the southeast corner of Hinson and.Napa Valley, or on the main church property southwest of the existing church building. They didn't believe that type of building and concentration of vehicles would be the best for the neighborhood or the church. They also looked at going to three services on Sunday, and while a possibility, it wouldn't help parking when there were special functions. The church had already arranged through purchase or lease to use all available parking around the church campus. The church January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A had established five other churches in other areas and moved some of its membership to some of them. The church does not intend to ask to increase its seating capacity, but they need more parking for the existing seating. The church leadership came to the conclusion that the expanded lot would be the less intrusive and offensive to the neighborhood. They would keep the new area locked except on Sunday morning and for special events. To mitigate the impact on Rainwood residents they would install thick landscape screening and fencing, and work with the neighbors and Staff to mitigate the impact of lighting. Charles Stein, owner of lot 2, the closest to the existing parking area, spoke in favor. He stated that his experience with the current parking lot had been good. He said that there had been no noise, the church kept the area maintained very well, and lighting had been no problem. He continued that the street widening project on Napa would have a much worse impact on him than the existing parking area had. Ray Rainey, owner of lot 3, also spoke in favor of the proposal. He felt that the street widening would greatly reduce his property value and cause him other problems, and the parking lot would be the best use of this land when considering what will happen when Napa Valley is widened. Mr. Mel Amrine began the discussion in opposition. He asked the other residents of Rainwood who were present to stand up to show the Commission how much opposition there was. About 17 people stood up. He stated that the concerns of the neighborhood were as follows: increased traffic; unwanted noise from the lot and from Napa Valley Road; negative impact from lighting; view of an opaque fence and a parking lot would be visually unappealing; destruction of 80 trees and 2 beautiful homes; increased drainage problems; loss of privacy in and around their homes; diminished intrinsic value of residences to their owners; decreased property value because of the above impacts; and, they would suffer these impacts 365 days a year for the church to use a parking lot once or twice a week. He finished by suggesting several alternatives, most of which the church already considered and decided against. Mr. Amrine commented that he felt that the parking garage on the south side of the existing church would be comparable in cost to this January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A proposal. He added that the church should also look into property for sale about one block west of the church on the north side of Hinson, and consider satellite churches. Laurie Lee spoke in opposition. She passed out pictures showing the existing homes and view from the Rainwood Cove homes. She emphasized the unappealing view, inadequate screening of the neighborhood, noise, loss of privacy, and the idea that removing the houses would make it easier for intruders to get into back yards of abutting properties. She finished by stating that this proposal raised an issue of development aggressively taking over neighborhoods, and that the integrity, safety, and feeling of security of every neighborhood is at risk and at the mercy of whoever has the most money, influence, or power if this passes. Commissioner Lowry asked if the church had considered arranging to use existing parking spaces at other lots and shuttling people to the church. A church representative said they had, but they didn't have that kind of shuttle capability, nor did they feel that would be a reasonable solution. Commissioner Lowry stated he questioned whether the cost and effort for the church to use shuttling occasionally should override the damage this would do to the neighbors. Commissioner Hawn pointed out some design flaws he saw in the proposed parking lot regarding buffering, preservation of trees, and planting trees within the lot. He also favored busing from other parking areas. He added that he was also concerned about "cancerous growth" such as this into residential neighborhoods, and that other alternatives should be used. Commissioner Nunnley stated a concern and directed a question to Mr. Lawson, whether limits were considered and stated in the conditions when the last request came in. He felt that the City may be giving churches the impression that they can continue to grow and take up more surrounding area irrespective of the rights of the neighbors. Mr. Lawson responded that future needs or impacts are difficult to project, and the Commission should not feel any obligation to approve this request just because they approved a previous request. The Commission should judge each request 8 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-A on its own merits at the time it is submitted and decide if they feel a particular request is appropriate or not. Commissioner Nunnley stated that growth of neighborhood churches may have to be weighed against neighborhood impact, and eventually a church may outgrow a particular location and need to look for another location. Mr. Lawson commented that we need to be careful in that evaluation that we don't force them to leave neighborhoods because of growth and move west for instance. Commissioner Rahman questioned the doubt that the four existing homes would survive after Napa Valley Road is widened since similar situations have occurred elsewhere and the houses survived. He felt that other alternatives should be used by the church to resolve their parking problem. Commissioner Rector asked if consideration had been given to using three lots to accommodate the same size parking area. He thought maybe up to 100 feet of buffer might be possible on the east side towards Rainwood Cove by making the new parking lot longer and more narrow. Mr. Frazier responded, that had not been considered. Commissioners Downing, Nunnley, and Berry made additional comments showing that they all felt that the church should pursue other alternatives before this one. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays and 1 absent.