Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6782-B Staff AnalysisFebruary 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -6782-B NAME: Second Baptist Church — Revised Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1709 John Barrow Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Second Baptist Church/Rev. Kevin Kelly PROPOSAL: A revised conditional use permit is requested to allow for expansion of a parking lot on this existing, R-2 zoned, 5t acre church site. SITE LOCATION: The site is located on the east side of John Barrow Road, north of Labette Drive. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The church has been a part of this neighborhood for many years. On July 26, 2001, a C.U.P. was approved to allow for construction of a Family Life Center and reconstruction of the existing parking lots. The church has filled an area behind the rear parking lot and paved over the fill for new parking. The new parking area has been located fairly near an apartment development which is located behind the church. Although there are concerns about the engineering of the fill and the reduction in buffer, staff believes the parking lot expansion should not affect the church's continued compatibility with the neighborhood. Outstanding Public Works and Landscape concerns must be resolved. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The church's sanctuary has a seating capacity of 550 persons, requiring 110 parking spaces (built prior to November 1, 1988). 144 spaces existed at the time of the July 2001 C.U.P. approval. This expanded parking area contains 51 additional parking spaces. Access to the new parking area is through the existing rear parking lot. February 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6782-B 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS; Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A total of eight (8) percent of the expanded parking area must be landscaped with interior landscaping islands. To receive credit toward fulfilling this requirement of the Landscape Ordinance, landscape islands must be at least 150 square feet in area and 7 Y2 feet in width. A redesign of the parking area to accommodate this interior landscaping and to help with vehicular circulation will be necessary. A protective border to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic is required. Much of the required thirty-six (36) foot wide land use buffer along the eastern perimeter has been destroyed or will be due to compaction and proposed benching and grading. Steps should be taken to protect and preserve existing trees. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen this site from the residential properties to the east and south. This screening must be located near the paved area due to its high -elevation. Irrigation of landscaped areas is required. Prior to a construction permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. This parking lot was constructed without a grading permit as required under the land alteration ordinance. Obtain a grading permit in accordance with section 29-186(c) and (d) prior to any additional grading activities at the site. Detailed site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 2. Revise proposed grading plan to save all remaining trees. Some parking spaces will be lost. 3. The existing slope already shows evidence of slope failure. During construction, a registered, qualified professional engineer must investigate and certify the long-term stability of the slopes. 2 February 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -G 4. All unsuitable fill materials including construction debris and tree trunks must be removed from the fill as work progresses. 5. Evergreen tree planting will be required in accordance with the zoning and land alteration ordinances, which ever is stringent. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments received. CATA: No Comments received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 2003) Thomas Pownall and Rev. Kevin Kelly were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding site lighting and fencing. Staff noted that the primary areas of concern were the site work that had been done without proper permits and the paving that had been done without landscaping. Public Works Comments were discussed at length. It was noted that staff had concerns that improper fill material had been used and the slope of the fill area was already failing. It was noted that much of the required buffer area had been destroyed and many of these trees left standing would likely die since the fill material had been placed around them. The applicant was advised that the parking area would need to be redesigned to accommodate Public Works and Landscape Comments. The applicant was advised to prepare a plan addressing staff's concerns. Staff stated the Commission would then determine if it was appropriate to allow the parking lot expansion and a specific time given to address the engineering and landscape issues. �3 February 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-67 The item was then forwarded to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: On July 26, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing for construction of a Family Life Center building and reconstruction of the existing parking lots on this R-2 zoned church site. Subsequent to construction of the new facility, the church filled and paved an area behind (east) the rear parking lot. This parking lot expansion was not included in the approved C.U.P. The parking lot was constructed without an approved grading permit, unsuitable fill materials may have been used and the slope of the fill already show signs of failure. The parking area was constructed without concern for the City's landscape and buffer regulations. No interior landscaping, screening, irrigation or curbs have been installed. Much of the required 36 foot wide land use buffer along the east perimeter of the site has been destroyed or will be due to compaction and proposed benching and grading. Staff believes the parking lot is an appropriate use for this portion of the site and could be compatible with the neighborhood. If the church had gone through the proper steps including Commission approval, grading and landscape permitting and appropriate construction and inspections. This might very well have been a "non -issue". As it is, the parking lot may yet be an appropriate use, if those outstanding Public Works and Landscape concerns are resolved. On September 3, 2003, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses to staff issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The parking lot has been redesigned to accommodate interior landscaping and appropriate stall and driveway configuration. Shrubbery has been shown at the top of the slope on the east perimeter of the parking lot to provide screening to the east. No screening has been provided on the south perimeter. Curb and gutter has been provided to protect the landscape areas. The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the existing asphalt to help with the required slope stabilization and to help preserve the existing trees. The engineering questions related to the fill and slope have not been answered. Staff believes the geotechnical report on the suitability and stability of the fill and the new slope design need to be completed by the applicant prior to the Commission considering the C.U.P. It may be that the results of that report could lead to substantial revisions to the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the October 30, 2003 Commission agenda. Staff believes it is imperative that the required engineering 4 February 12, 2004 ITEM NO_: A (Cont)—FILE NO.: Z -8782-B report be completed and submitted to staff as soon as possible. A report should be made no later than the October 9, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to be deferred to allow for the needed engineering report to be completed. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 30, 2003 Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Dinwiddy, a deacon at Second Baptist Church was present at the October 9, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated the engineering analysis had not been completed. Mike Hood, of Public Works, stated he was aware that borings were being made on the site as a component of that study. Staff advised the Committee that the item should be deferred one more time to allow for completion of the engineering report. The Committee concurred. Staff believes the applicant should submit the report no later than the November 20, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting allowing the Commission to take action at its December 18, 2003 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the required engineering report had not been submitted. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the December 18, 2003 Commission meeting with the engineering report to be submitted no later than the November 20, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF REPORT: The applicant's engineer contacted staff and stated the engineering report was not yet complete. Staff will support one last deferral until the February 12, 2004 meeting. If the report is not ready in time for the January 15, 2004 Subdivision 4i February 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6782-B Committee meeting, staff will ask that the Commission deny or withdraw the request, allowing enforcement to proceed. As required by the Commission's bylaws, the applicant will have to send new notices for the February 12, 2004 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the required engineering report had not yet been presented to staff. Staff recommended that the item be deferred one last time, to the February 12, 2004 meeting; that the required engineering report be submitted prior to the January 15, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting; and the applicant send new notices to surrounding property owners for the February 12, 2004 meeting. The application was placed on the Consent Agenda approved for deferral as recommended by staff. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted the Geotechnical Report prepared by Grubbs, Hoskin, Barton and Wyatt, Inc. consulting engineers. The report stated: "The stability of the existing embankment is not considered adequate at this time. Options for embankment remediation to improve slope stability include the following: 1. Provide a flatter slope for the uncontrolled existing fill by cutting back into the existing parking lot. 2. Removal of the existing embankment fill and replacement with compacted select fill." The applicant submitted a revised site plan in conjunction with the report. The applicant's engineer, Thomas Pownall of Thomas Engineering, appeared at the January 15, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The results of the geotechnical report and the revised site plan were discussed. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the revised .slope needed to be modified to a 3:1 slope. Mr. Hood stated that modification of the slope and remediation as outlined in the geotechnical report would satisfy staff's concerns about the fill issue. He noted that the applicant's plan did indicate appropriate measures to be taken during regrading; including a silt fence and hay bales. D February 12, 2004 ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6782-B Bob Brown, Plans Review Administrator, indicated additional shrubbery and trees were needed around the perimeter of the parking lot to provide screening. The applicant was advised to respond to the remaining staff issues by January 21, 2004 and to resend notices for the February 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. On January 21, 2004, the applicant did submit a revised site plan which addressed the remaining Public Works and Landscape Comments. The new plan shows the required slope modification and landscape screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (Revised for February 12, 2004) Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. 3. Compliance with the remediation plan outlined by the Geotechnical Report and approved by Public Works. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 12, 2004) The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above as revised for February 12, 2004. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 7