Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6149-B Staff AnalysisSeptember 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B NAME: LOCATION: nWNER/APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Z -6149-B Fellowship Bible Office Building - Conditional Use Permit 1701, 1711, 1801, 1811 Napa Valley Drive Charles Stein, Ray Rainey, Alberdeen Little, Shane Smith / Fellowship Bible Church PROPOSAL: To amend an existing conditional use permit to allow expansion of church property and to allow for a two story church office building with on site parking on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, located at 1701, 1711, 1801, 1811 Napa Valley Drive. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This proposed site is located on the east side of Napa Valley Drive, a short distance south of the intersection of Napa Valley and Hinson Road, across from Asbury United Methodist Church. 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 and add a two- story church office building. Staff does not believe this proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff feels that the building is too large to be located this close to a residential area, would leave too little separation or transition between this large building and an September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B established residential neighborhood, and would protrude past a clearly established line on the east side of Napa Valley Drive that now divides the office area to the north from the residential zoning. Staff's position is that the office use should not encroach further south. The Rainwood Cove and Glen Eagles Property Owners Associations, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed plan includes a divided driveway in the center of the additional area with 20 foot driveways on either side. The plan shows 186 parking spaces. The ordinance would require a minimum of 85 spaces based on 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area on a sliding scale after 10,000 square feet. The applicant has stated the building square footage would be 37,000. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with existing and proposed ordinance requirements. Under the proposed ordinance this project would be required to be irrigated. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Napa Valley is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline is required. b. Rainwood Drive is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. c. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Napa Valley and Rainwood. d. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 2 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B e. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. f. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. g. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. h. Napa Valley has a 1998 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT., AND CATA CONMNTS: Water: An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. On-site fire protection may be required. Any relocation of existing water facilities will be at the expense of the developer. Wastewater: Manhole adjustments will be done by the developer to utility standards. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKIA: No comments received. Entergy: A fifteen foot utility easement on either side of overhead pole line is required if overhead line is needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No comments requested. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested to amend an existing conditional use permit to allow expansion of church property and to allow for a two story church office building with on site parking on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. The proposed plan would meet ordinance required setbacks and siting requirements. The parking proposed is more than twice the minimum required by ordinance, 186 versus 85. The overall building height is 48 feet 3 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B to the peak. However the ordinance measures the height to the mid -point of the sloped roof which would be 33 feet compared to the maximum allowed 35 feet. The offices would be open primarily 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. The applicant has agreed to use bollard style lighting in the rear of the building and gate off the rear parking area behind the building closest to the residential area so that it would be open only during office hours and primary church services. The church has tried to accommodate requests by the City and has met with the neighborhood, listened to their concerns and made some adjustments. However, Staff does not believe this proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff feels that the building is too large to be located this close to a residential area. The addition of parking surrounding the building would make the new use even more overwhelming to the residents to the east, and leave too little separation or transition between this large building and an established residential neighborhood. Even with proper shielding of the lighting and with a board fence screen around the perimeter abutting the residential property, the building would loom over those houses. This office use would protrude past a clearly established line on the east side of Napa Valley Drive that now divides the office area to the north from the residential zoning. Staff's position is that the office use should not encroach further south. Staff does not believe this is a reasonable use of this property. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested conditional use due primarily to the size of the building, closeness to the residential area, and encroachment past the present dividing line between the office and residential zoning. 4 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z -6149-B (AUGUST 24, 2000) Mike Cruse was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal, briefly reviewing the comments provided to the applicant. The applicant provided the hours of operation and building square footage. He confirmed that they would gate the rear area and lock it when the offices were closed and no main church services were being held. He also made a few comments about meetings that were held with neighbors. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) Robert Lewis, Pastor, Mike Cruse, Campus Director, Randy Frazier, Church attorney, the architect and the engineer were present representing the application. There were several other church leaders and members also in attendance. There were 2 registered objectors and two other registered supporters present. Due to the length of the agenda, and based on the projected time for the Commission to reach this item, discussions took place outside of the hearing about deferring the item. It was felt that the deferral would be better for all parties by allowing the item to be considered earlier in the agenda rather than at a'late hour as would occur at this hearing. The applicant then requested a deferral until the next hearing. A motion was made to defer the application until September 28, 2000. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 2811 2000) Robert Lewis, Pastor, Mike Cruse, Campus Director, Randy Frazier, Church attorney, the architect and the engineer 5 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.• B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B were present representing the application. There were 3 registered objectors and one proponent present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for denial of the conditional use permit due primarily to the size of the building, closeness to the residential area, and encroachment past the present dividing line between the office and residential zoning. Commissioner Nunnley asked for Public Works to give an update on the proposed widening of Napa Valley Drive. Mr. Turner,'Public Works Director, explained where the process was and what was still to be done before construction would begin. He expected it would be ready to go to contract in approximately one year. Commissioner Nunnley followed with a question about the effect of this proposed development on water runoff. Mr. Turner stated that the project would have to adhere to the storm water detention requirements of the ordinance. He then showed a grade alignment drawing showing the impact of the road widening on the properties in the proposal, showing that the road widening would push out into the current front yards of these properties about 20 feet. He added that the new development would have to match grades with the new road and that Public Works recommended that the church make an in -lieu payment to the City to meet their requirement and let the City do all of the street widening contract at one time. Randy Frazier, church attorney, began the church's presentation. He began by mentioning that the President signed into law on September 22 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He stated that depending on the interpretation, the law states that the City cannot place unreasonable restrictions on land use and development or apply land use regulations unless there is a compelling governmental interest and it's the least restrictive means, and cannot place a substantial burden on worship and the exercise of religion. Mr. Frazier noted that after the Commission meeting in January, where the church had applied for a parking area on half of the property on the current request, the church completed its long range strategic plan for future development of the church. The plan addressed several of the issues that were brought up at that January hearing. He 6 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B stated the church has gone to three services. He said the church bought 4 small shuttle buses and does shuttle from Pulaski Academy, Cyprus Plaza, Terry Library, and Smith Capital Management parking areas during all services. The church also looked at other land to use as potential parking areas. Item C, Hinson Road, on this agenda was their prime choice as an alternate location to use for parking. The plan also plans to cap the church membership and plans to create other branch churches if they reach the cap for the current church location. He stated the church -feels that the proposed office building with the accompanying parking is a dire necessity for the, church to continue its ministry to the community and to its members and visitors. He added they feel that not granting the use would pose a substantial burden on the church. Mr. Robert Lewis, teaching Pastor, briefly explained the church's long range plan. He said it includes three Sunday services with a cap on membership of 7,500 people, a need for the additional office space and parking areas being asked for today. He stated they currently have an attendance of about 5,000 each Sunday. He added that the two requests before the Commission would be the last asked for. He committed to no more requests for any further expansion into the surrounding neighborhood. This would finish the campus development required in their current long-range plan at this location and enable them to continue to help people through the current ministries they are now committed to. He also stated that they started five other churches in surrounding communities as growth occurred. He also said, to relieve concerns of surrounding neighborhoods, that they will not expand beyond these two projects, they will not try to "gobble up" any more properties around them. They feel they have done all they could to mitigate the impact of these two projects and be good neighbors while meeting their own needs for facilities. He stated that the only time they cannot meet the parking requirements within today's available parking is on Sunday. Regarding traffic problems, he stated that the policemen they hired to direct traffic during services have signed statements that it takes only one to two minutes to move the off-site parking through the church campus at the height of the alleged congestion. Regarding noise and crime, the church is unaware of any problems of consequence, other than an occasional call about 7 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) noise. With regard to property realtors revealed that values not down, and are comparable t FILE NO.: Z -6149-B values, their poll of area around the church have gone up o other similar neighborhoods. Regarding the details of the proposed office building development, Pastor Lewis stated that they could still meet their required square footage and reduce the size from 365 feet long, about 75 feet deep, and 49 feet high to 264 feet long, about the same depth and 35 feet high, if they changed the style from residential to a more normal office style. He added that the church would be willing to place whatever type and density of vegetation the neighbors and the City wanted in the 25 foot buffer to provide screening and be a good neighbor. They agreed to work with the surrounding neighbors in the selection of the type and height of screening fencing to provide security and be pleasing to look at. They agreed to use bollard lighting rather than pole lighting to prevent lighting from spilling into the surrounding neighborhoods. He said they would gate the rear parking area and shut it after 5 p.m. during the week and non -service times on weekends to provide an extra buffer. Regarding the Hinson parking area, Pastor Lewis stated no Pulaski Academy use would be allowed. The parking areas would be gated and locked at all times other than for church use. He added that lighting would again be bollard type along the west side. He stated that the buffer between the parking area and Pleasant Valley Estates would be heavily screened and landscaped. He also mentioned they have agreed to tie the use specifically to Fellowship Bible use. He agreed that if it was sold or used for anything other than church parking, the C.U.P. could be terminated. He continued by saying the church has signed a contract to do a study to ensure that drainage from both the Adkins development and the Fellowship Bible development would not negatively impact the downstream flow. He also stated they would construct a brick and iron fence along Hinson to blend with the existing and proposed fencing. Pastor Lewis stated in response to a neighbor's question as to why not just move the church to an area with more room, he responded that would cause an inward focus of time and resources to accomplish that, and take away from focusing all of that energy into community service which they are•now 8 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6149-B able to do. They are unwilling to do that now. They don't want to move, but if they grow beyond the stated cap, they would move the excess membership to another location and keep this site too, with its important ministries. Mike Cruse explained more details of the office building structure and exterior features. He stated that the new building would have about 22,600 square feet compared to 19,300 square feet in the existing 4 houses. He added that the new building would be about 90 feet from the back property line, which is about the same as the houses are setback now. Rick Sowell, project architect, spoke about the design philosophy of the building. He stated that the overall intent was to make it look as residential as possible with a sloped shingle roof, brick, stone and siding mix, and a brick chimney. He commented that the height, while high overall at the peak, does meet City requirements for a sloped roof at 33 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Allen, he stated that the pitch of this roof would be about a 12 in 12 in comparison to houses today that range from 7 in 12 to 12 in 12. Commissioner Nunnley asked about how the building would look if they reduced the size as mentioned earlier. Mr. Sowell stated that would reduce the overall footprint, but it would be more rectangular and have a more commercial look. He added that the length would shorten some, the depth would increase, but still fall within the roof footprint of the residential building shown in the model. Commissioner Lowry asked the City Attorney about the impact the Act mentioned earlier would have on this proposal, and if this doesn't change the ground rules for the Commission's decision. He added that if they don't know the new ground rules this Act generates, how could they make a decision. Mr. Giles, City Attorney, responded that he had not had time to evaluate the meaning of this new Act, and he agreed that Commissioner Lowry's question of how to decide without knowing the new ground rules was a good one. D September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.• B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B Commissioner Lowry moved that Item B & C be deferred until the rules based on the new Act be presented to the Commission. It died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt the Commission should hear the opposition presentation and then decide whether to defer or not. Commissioner Lowry questioned how the Commission could proceed without knowing what was the "least restrictive" thing they can do in order to accomplish the good of the City as referred to in the Act. Mike Callahan, Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association Executive Committee member, spoke in opposition on behalf of himself and the Neighborhood Association. He stated that the overwhelming majority of their neighborhood opposed this proposal, and that only one or two people were ok with it. He presented the following seven reasons why he felt this building should not be built: 1) inappropriate building size; he showed a scaled model which demonstrated that the size of the proposed building was much larger and out of context in scale to the adjacent houses; 2) negative sight impact; loss of most of the mature trees, possible drainage problems, and complete change to the topography of the site; 3) security concerns; large number of people transiting the new site day and night, and possible physical security and visual privacy concerns; 4) noise and light pollution; noise from traffic and overflow lighting from the parking area; 5) increased traffic problems; significant increase in traffic congestion caused during rush hours entering and exiting the single access point into the new development; 6) decreased property value, particularly of the 9 homes abutting the proposed site; 7) perpetuating unstructured growth of the church at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods. He concluded by suggesting Fellowship Bible move to another site for its primary location and make this location a satellite. Harlan Weber, resident abutting the proposed site, spoke in opposition. He asked how denying this large office building would interfere with worship and the exercise of religion as mentioned in the new Act. He submitted petitions from three 10 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.• B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B nearby neighborhoods in opposition. He also reiterated the point with their own scale model of how big the new building would be compared to his house. He asked if the appeal of the original denial in January of the parking area had been withdrawn. Mr. Frazier stated that the church had abandoned the original application which was for a parking area only half of the properties in the current request. Mr. Weber suggested that the church move to a larger site. He also noted that Fellowship Bible owned the Cloud, Cloud and Carter office building on the southeast corner of Hinson and Napa Valley. Hill Sloan, representing the Countrywood Condominium regime, spoke in opposition. He stated that the overwhelming majority of their complex residents opposed this proposal. He commented that the goals of the church were laudatory, but he felt that the needs of the residents and the church's neighbors would be paramount. He added that as stated in Countrywood's petition, this development would denigrate and/or destroy the ambiance and atmosphere of the neighborhood, plummet the property values of the surrounding area causing financial hardship and loss to the area residents, and the project would create intolerable traffic conditions for the children and all residents of the area. He also referred to the new law Mr. Frazier spoke of and its referral to burdens to the church. He asked what about burdens to the residents? What about the needs of the neighborhood not just the needs of the church? Commissioner Nunnley asked the applicants what their plans were to redevelop the site should they move. Pastor Lewis answered that they don't plan to leave the site so they don't have any redevelopment plan. In response to a restatement of the question, Pastor Lewis said that if they had to abandon the site they would work with the community to redevelop it. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Weber if he could accept the scaled down building mentioned by the church. Mr. Weber said that he couldn't accept any other building there besides the existing houses. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Frazier if he was saying that the new law would require the Commission to allow this use because it is for a church. His answer was that if the church has shown a substantial burden on the exercise of. 11 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B Commissioner Downing asked Mr. Frazier what burden denying this application would place on the church activities where it exists right now. He answered that the existing burden is that the church can't provide enough parking and space for the members and visitors that come to the church, that the existing site impedes church growth, and members were turning away from attending because they can't find parking. Pastor Lewis added to the answer that currently areas that were set aside for children in the current church building were being used for offices, and even with that, people were doubling up in offices and working from their homes. The new office building would alleviate the office crowding and allow space to be used as originally intended, for children. Commissioner Lowry asked for more specifics on the actual office space needed at a minimum to adequately function. Pastor Lewis stated that they are trying to meet the needs of current staff and staff growth to 150 persons over the next three years with the square footage in the new building. Commissioner Rahman asked if they had room to build on existing church property near the student fellowship hall. The conclusion was no, it was already fully developed. Commissioner Nunnley asked Pastor Lewis why they couldn't open other branches now rather than wait until they reach their new cap of 7,500 members. Pastor Lewis responded that they had devoted a lot of time and resources over the last several years to build up their facilities and programs at this current location. These last two projects would complete that effort. Now they could devote their resources to applying those ministries to the community, not fund raising and internal facility construction. He continued that if they try to set up another major branch now, then that would take much of the time and resources away again from those ministries in order to set up the branch. That goes against their plan and desire of where to expend their efforts and resources. Commissioner Faust stated that she felt the question the Commission had to answer was what would be the affect of this project on the surrounding neighborhoods, and would it 12 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.• B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B be compatible with, and impact the integrity of the neighborhood. She understood the church does not believe the new office building would have any undesirable affect on the surrounding neighborhood. Pastor Lewis agreed with her assessment of the church's position. She stated she had trouble reconciling the compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood. Commissioner Earnest asked Pastor Lewis if they had considered building multiple story buildings and parking garages on the current property. Pastor Lewis responded that he felt those approaches would be more unattractive and undesirable to the neighbors, and more negatively impact the overall visual appearance of the area, plus be much more expensive for the church. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Frazier if he would like to enter into the record any specific tenant of the religion which requires this growth and expansion. Mr. Frazier responded that the burden would be reduced access to the premises for the people who would visit, limited future growth of the church, limitations on the use of the facilities and ministries the church can provide because of the limited available space. Commissioner Rector said he saw the problem to be the size and location of the proposed building and asked if the office administration couldn't be done elsewhere. Pastor Lewis responded that would separate those functions from where the daily business of the church occurs and where their support is applied, to the ministries and people at the church, and he said he felt that would be an undue burden on the church. Commissioner Downing asked how many staff members there were currently, how many offices there were on and off site, and was some standard square footage figure used to match requirements to arrive at the required size of the proposed building. The response from Pastor Lewis was approximately 110 staff members and 110 offices now, with the future plan to include 150 staff members. The architect stated standard sizes were used to design the new building based on the requirements given to him by the church. Commissioner Downing continued by stating that he had concern about the 13 September 28, 2000 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6149-B size and the footprint of the proposed building and he felt it would be too much for the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Adcock asked if the church owned any office space it had leased out to others. Pastor Lewis responded that they owned a building near the corner of Hinson and Napa Valley which contained about 9,000 square feet, but it was under a lease to be used by doctors until the year 2003. However, he added that that building was already planned for use by existing ministries of the church when the lease expires. He said they would be relocating these ministries so they can move out of space the church is leasing now at Smith Capital Management. Commissioner Nunnley brought up the fact that the Commission approved the Immanuel Baptist Church C.U.P., which he felt was very invasive to that neighborhood, and he felt the Commission should be consistent in their decisions. Commissioner Rahman made the point that the difference in these two applications was that the neighborhood had come to an acceptable compromise agreement with the church in that case, but not in this case. Chair Adcock made the comment that she read that some members in Congress stated this new law would cause churches and neighborhoods to be at each other's throats and she felt that was coming true. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include Public Works' comments and recommendations and the Pastor's statements as to proposed changes. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 8 nays, abstention by Commissioner Nunnley and 1 absent. 14