Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6784 Staff AnalysisFebruary 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Z-6784 Immanuel Baptist Church 501 North Shackleford Road Immanuel Baptist, contract pending/ Pat McGetrick PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of one main worship facility with expansion space and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property which is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This site is located on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Shackleford Road and Mara Lynn Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is Zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It is surrounded to the north, east and west by R-2 zoning. To the south the zoning is C-3, General Office, and to the southwest the zoning is 0-1, Quiet Office. There is a residential neighborhood to the north and northwest, a school to the west, Interstate 430 to the east, and a Kroger store to the south. This proposal would be a drastic change to the area. The site is currently a tree -covered 19 acre green island surrounded by development and paved areas. A church use would be compatible with the surrounding zones, but the size of this facility and the congregation raise concerns as to whether this particular proposal is compatible with this particular site. Staff has several questions regarding substantial issues that must be resolved prior to February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 being able to determine compatibility in this instance. Those issues are listed in the "Analysis." The Walnut Valley and the Beverly Hills Property Owners Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposal includes two driveways, one entering at the southwest corner from Shackleford, the other entering at the northeast corner from Breckenridge. There are challenges in both instances which are described in the "analysis". The proposal is for a 2500 seat assembly area. That would generate a parking requirement for 625 spaces, based on a 1 for 4 ratio, including 13 handicap accessible spaces, two of which must be van accessible. The proposal shows 1112 parking spaces initially, including 18 handicap accessible, and 240 additional spaces in the future. That is more than double the ordinance requirement and considered excessive by Staff. Part of the parking is shown to be provided by two two-level parking garages, with access to each level being at opposite ends of the parking structure and at two different levels. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The proposed areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the exception of the proposed street buffer along Interstate 430. The average full buffer depth in this area required by ordinance is 32 feet. The minimum depth with transfers is 21 feet. The average buffer depth shown in this area only averages about 8 feet and in areas is below the 6 foot minimum allowed at any given point. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north and northwest perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings that grow to a minimum height of 6 feet within three years. 2 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree covered property. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. Because of the changes in grade elevations, it will be necessary to provide cross sections showing proposed treatments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Develop realignment of intersection (Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road intersection) to facilitate ingress and egress to the site. c. Provide a schematic layout of the signals at the intersection. d. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. e. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. f. Provide cross sections of site showing cuts, fills, retaining walls, prior to Planning Commission. g. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. h. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. i. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. j. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. k. Private drive to Breckenridge must be approved by Arkansas Highway Department and City of Little Rock. (Has sign been posted on Breckenridge? Has there been notification to Walnut Valley Church?) 1. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour intervals, and 100 year flood elevation is required. m. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 3 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 n. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. o. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 29-186(b) is required. p. Contact the ADP&E for approval prior to start of work is required. q. Contact the FEMA for conditional approval prior to start of work is required. r. Drive across grassy flat to Breckenridge encroaches on floodway. (140 feet wide floodway) 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. On site fire protection will be required. Existing water line easements should be shown on the plans. Any required relocation of existing water facilities will be at the developer's expense. Wastewater: Sewer is available on site for this project. Capacity Analysis required for this project, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Any relocation of Utility mains required for this project will be completed by the Developer at their expense. Records show a sewer line through this property. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: Right-of-way requested for 30 feet around the entire perimeter of this property for possible 3 Phase overhead lines. Contact Entergy for more details. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free, 371-3752, at the fire department concerning placement of fire hydrants and turning radii. CATA: This site is near Route #5. Approved for transit purposes. 4 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of one main worship facility with expansion space and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property. The applicant has not stated what other activities will occur in the facility besides worship services. Information about other types of uses in the facility besides worship are important, such as classrooms, a fellowship hall, day care, private school, and recreation. These activities would impact the frequency and the hours of use of the site and are important factors to consider in the evaluation of the proposal. The proposal would take up most of the site except for a 50 foot buffer along the north and west sides, and initially the area left open in the southeast corner for future development. The proposal did not state if the 50 foot buffer would be undisturbed. Further conversations revealed that the design is not far enough along to know if the buffer could be left undisturbed. All setback requirements appear to be met, but the. height would exceed standards. The maximum allowed height in R-2 zoning is 35 feet and the proposed building is about 83 feet tall with a height to the top of the steeple proposed to be 145 feet. However, Staff was told that these are preliminary estimated maximums. Design is not far enough along to know for sure. The site is currently rather hilly with contours ranging from a low of 420 to a high of 537, with several hills and valleys scattered throughout. Finished contours range from 420 to 530. Staff needs to have some idea of how the engineers propose to place the proposed development on this site by having cut and fill profiles and cross sections, and retaining wall descriptions to review. Information provided shows walls ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall. 5 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 We need to see how the final structures will look to people looking into the site when it's completed by having elevations so the impact to the surrounding area can be assessed. The applicant needs to show how landscaping will blend in with the various grades, walls, cuts and overall treatment across the site through cross sections. The applicant should explain how the traffic from a 2500 seat church will be managed and what impact it will have on the surrounding area at the end of services. Access is another major issue that also currently has many unanswered questions. The northeast driveway will cross interstate highway right-of-way and require the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department's approval. The southwest driveway must line up with Mara Lynn entering the opposite side of the intersection. To do that, some sort of a joint agreement will have to be worked out with Kroger because to get the intersection to match with what's already there, they will have to use part of Kroger property. This site cannot work without two separated access points to handle traffic for church services or special events, and the ability to provide two is not confirmed at this time. Without answers to, and additional information for most of the above issues, Staff cannot realistically evaluate this proposal in order to provide well developed recommendations to the Commission. These evaluations and recommendations will be important to the Commission as it attempts to weigh new development against neighborhood opposition which we know exists. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes consideration of the requested conditional use permit to be premature at this time due to the status of the applicant's design for this site. Therefore, Staff recommends this application be deferred until the applicant can answer the questions and provide the information requested by Staff. How long a deferral depends on the applicant determining when they can provide the information. 6 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z-6784 (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and reviewed the issues of concern and information needed. The review was fairly short since the questions were straight forward and the answers weren't readily available. Besides the review of the issues as described in the Staff Report, Staff emphasized that this proposal would cause a major change to the area and the importance of firming up the ability to provide two separated access points. Staff also mentioned the idea of off site parking areas from which to either bus members, or to be located close enough to walk. The area at the east end of the I-430 pedestrian bridge was mentioned. There being no further points to make, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action pending the receipt of the requested information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pat McGetrick, engineer for the project, and Muriel Lewis, architect for the project were present representing the application. There was one other person in favor and nine persons opposed who registered at the hearing. Staff presented the item with a revised recommendation for approval subject to compliance with certain conditions. Staff received more information between the time the original report above was written for the Commission and the time of this meeting. The availability of this additional information which Staff was ready to present to the Commission resulted in the change in Staff's recommendation to one of approval with conditions. The conditions recommended were as follows: 1) Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances; 2) Comply with Public Works Comments in the above report; 3) All exterior lighting must be low intensity, directed inward and downward to the property and not towards any residential area; 4) Maintain, a minimum 50 foot undisturbed buffer 7 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 along the north and west sides of the property except to the northeast and southwest access points; 5) No excavation permit nor building permit would be issued for this site until all ordinance requirements are met, until State Highway Department and the City have approved the access road to Breckenridge, and until City requirements for the access at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road are satisfied. Staff also recommended approval of a variance to allow the proposed height for the building and the steeple. Mr. Lawson, Planning and Development Director, stated that several people had suggested that the Commission delay its consideration of this item until Highway Department, approval for the access to Breckenridge is obtained, until staff receives complete detail finished drawings for the church structure, and other detail information. He stated that final approval and detail information is far off. He felt that the question of use and appropriateness of the location for this proposed church could be answered now, and the other details could be dealt with through conditions placed in the C.U.P. He added that one condition would certainly be, and the church agrees, that this proposal cannot work without the approved access to Breckenridge. So without that road and meeting other conditions the Commission feels are appropriate, there would be no C.U.P., it would become void. Commissioner Nunnley asked if any thought for limiting future growth had been examined. He was concerned that the church would soon be at capacity at this proposed location and would be back in a year or two wanting to expand. Mr. Lawson responded that this proposed church is much larger than their existing church and it gives them a lot of capacity. Additional services could be added to serve many more people quickly without any building expansion. Dr. Rex Horn, -the applicant and Pastor of Immanuel Baptist, began by stating that the initial construction would not use all the property and the proposed building would hold a lot more people than the existing church. Currently their services average 1200-1300 on Sunday and about half that on Wednesday. Therefore, he felt the property would be adequate into the foreseeable future, particularly since the church membership growth is almost stagnant right now. He continued with an explanation of factors considered in 8 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 choosing a new site, and in particular, this site, and that they were working diligently to address all concerns with the intent of being good neighbors in solving the issues. Mr. William Sutton, a Trustee of the church, spoke in favor of the proposal and stated he felt the church had taken responsible steps in this process and that the proposal is sensitive to the neighborhood and addresses their concerns. He added that the church does not want to create enemies by moving to this location. Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homes Association, began the opposition presentation. He showed several slides showing streets in the area covered with traffic, and the proposed site as it is now. He touched on several issues: existing traffic; size of the streets around the site; the fact that this land is state owned and that not developing it would not affect a developer's investment; the huge size of a 20 acre church complex; and, how the area had already been changed and affected in the past ten years as shown by an aerial photo. In his view, the only "pro" for this project is it would be better than a commercial site. The "cons" included the following: the proposed church's size would have a commercial type of impact on Walnut Valley and West Little Rock; the nature and impact of the access road to Breckenridge; the impact of decreasing options for the Highway Department to use this area to help alleviate the congestion at the intersection of I-630 & I-430; this size of church would be beyond the scope envisioned when the ordinance included a church as an allowed conditional use in a residential zoned area; there is no room to expand Shackleford north of this site and it already carries a traffic volume daily that is larger than many 4 -lane roads in the City; and there are too many unanswered questions of how this site would be developed at this point. He concluded with the point that he felt this project would be like trying to put a large square peg in a small round hole. With a visual demonstration he showed how that doesn't work. Patricia Keightley spoke in opposition mainly because she felt the project would result in a decrease in property values to all adjoining property. Jacqueline Wright was opposed because she felt the access road to Breckenridge would increase an existing traffic problem there. She felt that problem results in part from the Bible Church which is E February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 located close to where the access road would enter Breckenridge. The two churches would have similar high traffic times. She also felt that the appropriate development for the site is only single family which would match its current zoning. Rich Livdahl spoke in opposition because he felt it would have a negative impact on traffic, health and safety. His issues included backup of water which already occurs at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford during storms, and the negative visual impact of such a large building. Gary Barnett spoke in opposition emphasizing the negative affects of noise, congestion, dirt, run-off, etc., he felt would occur during the construction phase, in addition to the impacts of the finished church. Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt he did not have all the information he needed to make a decision. He wanted the Commissioners to have a chance to review the traffic study, and to receive an answer about the issue of approval of the access road to Breckenridge which was such an integral part of the project working. Mr. Lawson responded that all the information won't be developed to the degree he was asking for unless the City says the use is approved. Then the church would still have to be able to meet all the conditions the Commission included in the C.U.P. or it would become void. Commissioner Lowry stated that he was astounded that the Commission was not asked to defer this item based on the amount of missing information. He felt that since the traffic study, which he sees as an important part of the information needed to make a decision, was just received and that the Commissioners hadn't had an opportunity to see it, plus the amount of other missing information was reason to defer. Mr. Lawson responded that much of the information the Commissioners want is what Staff would like to present to them tonight. Commissioner Hawn commented that he preferred to have reports given to him so he could read them himself, rather than trying to have all the information presented during the Commission hearing. He then made a motion to defer the item. 10 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 During discussion about the motion, Commissioner Downing had several questions also about missing information that he felt he needed to be able to decide if this request was appropriate for this location. Mr. Lawson responded that Staff was trying to answer many of those questions, but the Commission wasn't allowing the information available to be presented. Dr. Horn responded, when asked by the Chair; that they were not in favor of a deferral. He felt they had the people present to respond to the questions the Commissioners were asking, plus a deferral to February 17 would push them past a deadline they had in regard to the contract to purchase. A vote was taken on the motion to defer. It failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 nays, 1 absent. Discussion continued. Greg Simmons of Peters & Associates Engineers presented the traffic study. They gathered their data on Sunday during times they felt would be maximum peak times. He explained in general the methodology they used to conduct their study, and the recommendations to improve the flow. The resulting conclusion was that the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would operate at an acceptable level "C" with the suggestions in place during the entering peak period on Sunday morning. That would be a drop from level "B" that it currently operates at during those times. The exiting peak period would operate at level "D". He added that level "D" is an accepted design level for traffic engineers at peak periods. When looking at the other access from Breckenridge, they assumed a 36 foot wide, three lane road, and that only 25% of the traffic would flow to and from that direction. Their conclusion was that intersection would operate at level "B" with only "Stop Sign Control" at both the entering and exiting peak periods on Sunday mornings. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the traffic analysis for the access road to Breckenridge included the Bible Church traffic. The answer was yes. He added that when that church is in session, people park along the street to such a degree that you have only one lane open. More traffic through there would add to an existing problem. 11 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Rahman asked about the impact the church would have on Wednesday night traffic. Mr. Simmons responded that was not studied because it was considered to be less than on Sunday. When asked to estimate the current level of service on Wednesday evenings at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, Mr. Simmons responded he would estimate it to be level "B" or at worst a "C". Commissioner Nunnley commented that he lives near the current Immanuel Church site and that the impact of the church traffic during week nights is negligible. Commissioner Berry mentioned the point that he felt it would be very helpful for the neighborhood to see for comparison what the impact would be if a retail or some other commercial development moved into this site. He felt the state will sell this property and it could be to a commercial developer. Commissioner Lowry asked Dr. Horn what he would expect his growth to be over the next ten years. He replied he would hope it would grow to 2000. Then in reply to the Commissioner's follow on question, Mr. Simmons replied that their study was based on the traffic estimated to be generated from the full 2500 seat capacity, not a smaller number. Commissioner Hawn asked Dr. Horn what efforts he had made to be a good neighbor to Walnut Valley so far. His response was that he had offered the following to the neighborhood: children's summer programs and basketball leagues, making the family life center available to the neighborhood, including having one night a month when the neighborhood association could use the facilities free of charge, making a contribution to the Walnut Valley park, working with the neighbors regarding buffers and the impact of the access road to Breckenridge, self-defense classes for women, and senior adult activities and lunches. Commissioner Berry commented on what he saw as an excessive amount of parking since they have proposed about twice the amount required by City ordinance. He felt that should be cut down and then provide more buffer between the residential area. 12 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Faust pointed out that the ordinance states that the Commission's charge is to review the compatibility of a proposed conditional use with the area, and review the measures being taken to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. She continued that she had problems with the compatibility that this large a church on this plot of land would have in the close proximity with the established neighborhood. She still had many questions before she could decide. Her questions included how the church would look in place, and what would King's Mountain look like after the church was built. She felt elevations and cross- sections could help answer those two questions. She also felt the site was over parked. Commissioner Rahman called upon Mark McGee to state his concerns. He stated that he was concerned that the traffic study data was gathered on December 19, 1999, which was during Christmas break when many people were out of town and schools were not in session. Also he was concerned over the church adding a school later which would increase traffic every weekday that the school was in session. Commissioner Berry called upon Lisa Ring to add her comments. She was concerned that when the traffic data was gathered, Terry School across the street from the proposed site was not in session, and she hadn't heard the school mentioned during the discussion. She felt that some of the school traffic would change the results because they have after school programs that let out at the same times the church would be having evening activities and Wednesday evening services. She felt that this was not the place for this big of a church, that there's too much in that area already. Commissioner Berry made the point that if the church wanted to add a school in the future, they would have to come back before the Commission to modify their C.U.P.. Mr. Lawson added that the application does not ask for a school or any day care, it's just for the church and "family life" functions, and that would be all that would be allowed without coming back before the Commission. Mr. Lawson responded to the question of drainage by calling upon Bob Turner, Acting Public Works Director. Mr. Turner called up the project engineer, Pat McGetrick to review what they would do to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. 13 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 McGetrick stated that in redoing the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, they would be reworking the drainage to handle the run-off from the church site, and thereby reducing existing problems too. He added that they would meet City requirements for on site water detention and discharge from the site. He added that the worst cuts currently anticipated were 25-30 feet in 10-15% of the site. Commissioner Downing asked more questions of Mr. McGetrick regarding the buffers to the residential areas north and west. Mr. McGetrick replied that the buffer along the north varies from 60 to 100 feet from the proposed paved area. Muriel Lewis, architect for the project, added that along the west side the buffer between the property line and the paved area would be 40-45 feet. In both buffer areas they plan to add additional evergreens before construction begins to help provide a denser visual and sound buffer right from the beginning. Mr. Lewis explained the concept of the building and how it would fit in with the grades. The result would be that there would be at most two floors above grade and the parking areas would follow the grades as much as possible. Commissioner Rahman stated he still needed more information before he could make a decision. He wanted to see a traffic study that included the time frame when school is open, including Wednesday nights, along with the "worse" conditions, and what the traffic would be like with a residential R-2 development on this site. He also wanted to see cross-sections and elevations. Commissioner Berry requested that traffic model impacts be provided for other types of development on the site such as office, commercial, and multifamily. Commissioner Faust made the point that if the neighborhoods want to preserve green space, probably a way to do it is through City parks or through the neighborhood associations themselves buying land in order to preserve it as green space. Commissioner Rector added that information needed for the deferred meeting should include, besides traffic studies and elevations, increased buffer considerations and why the requested amount of parking is needed. 14 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 A motion was made to defer the application to a special meeting to be held on February 3, 2000. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: A revised site plan for the proposed new Immanuel Baptist Church was provided to Staff on January 24, 2,000. The following information summarizes the major.changes in that plan. The green buffer area'to the north and northwest would be increased to a minimum of 100 feet, with 75 feet of the northern buffer and about 30 feet of the northwestern buffer remaining undisturbed. The building roof peak height above grade would be about 90 feet on the north side and the building would be approximately 130 feet further to the south than originally proposed. The steeple height above grade on the north side would be about 145 feet, or 55 feet above the roof peak. The two-level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building, and one of those levels would still be below grade. The south parking area would be at grade and be sloped down to about the same level as the Kroger parking lot on the south side. The future additional building that had been shown in the southeast portion of the property, has been removed and replaced with at -grade parking. The proposed total parking has been reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces. (The ordinance minimum requirement is 625 spaces.) The long parking area originally proposed along the entire Shackleford Road frontage has been removed. There would be a few spaces in the general area of the front entrance which still faces Shackleford Road. The footprint of the building would be a little longer running east/west, but smaller running north/south. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 3, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pastor of Immanuel Baptist; Jim Erwin, church representative; Muriel Lewis, project architect; Gregg Simmons, Peters Associates Engineers; and Pat McGetrick, project engineer, were present representing the application. There were 6 registered objectors, 1 registered proponent, and one person registered as "not opposed", who were present. Staff presented the item with a revised project proposal and 15 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed above in the January 6 Planning Commission Action minutes. Condition 4 has been changed to read: "Maintain a minimum 100 foot buffer on both the north and west sides, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed." The revised proposal is: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road, consisting of one main church facility with accompanying parking, 100 foot buffers on both the north and west -.sides, and access to Breckenridge Drive and the' intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Roads. The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential." The changes made were to drop the request for expansion space on the east side of the main building, to drop the future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property, and to increase the buffers to 100 feet on the north and west sides. The major changes in the proposed project were presented by Staff as follows: increased buffers from 50 to 100 feet on the north and west sides of the property, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed; a two level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building; the south side parking lot would be at grade and larger than originally proposed; the additional building on the southeast portion of the property was deleted; total parking was reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces and would be built in two phases, with phase one containing 850 spaces. Phase 1 parking would include all the north side parking area and about one-half of the total south parking area closest to the building. Staff also advised the Commission that since the January 6 meeting, an additional letter- and two phone calls were received in opposition to the proposal. A copy of the letter had been given to each Commissioner. The main concerns expressed in the phone calls were traffic and a negative impact on the adjoining property. Muriel Lewis showed a drawing and reviewed the changes made to the site plan in response to Staff and neighborhood 16 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 concerns. He pointed out the following changes on the drawing: the building was moved to the south and east; a minimum of 100 foot buffers were left on the north and west; he described that the north side parking deck had been moved 126 feet south,and how it would be built partially into the ground and not be very visible; he stated the majority of the parking was now proposed on the south side of the building and property; the building height was lowered 5 feet and it had a narrower profile from the east and west views. Mr. Lewis referred to a letter from the State Highway Department that had been given to the Commissioners which stated that the proposed access road to Breckenridge across Interstate 43Q right-of- way appeared feasible, but final approval authority would lie with the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Lewis also explained that the access road to Breckenridge would have evergreen trees planted along it to buffer it from the houses in that area. Mr. Gregg Simmons, from Peters and Associates Engineers, presented the supplemental traffic study results. He stated the additional data results showed that Wednesday evenings would have a level of service `B' at both access points, Breckenridge and Mara Lynn/Shackleford; (this included an assumption that the service would have about 60% of the number of people that come on Sunday morning). They also found that the alternative development scenarios of a 380 unit multi -family, 200,000 square foot office, and 152,000 square foot commercial development, would all operate at level of service `D' at both the a.m. and the p.m. peak volumes five days a week. Pat McGetrick explained the cuts into existing grades that would result from the proposed project. They would be as follows: north side, virtually none; northwest corner would be cut 25 to 28 feet; the ridge in the middle of the property where the church building would be located would be cut 35 foot; they deleted the proposed retaining walls along Shackleford and replaced them with graded 4 to 1 slopes; and there would be 3.5 foot maximum cuts in the area where the road would go out to Breckenridge. Curtis Thomas, retired executive pastor for the Bible Church of Little Rock on Breckenridge, asked that something be placed in writing or as a condition in the C.U.P. that 17 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 if traffic becomes a larger problem due to Immanuel Baptist that it would be worked out. Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homeowners Association, stated that the Association had reached an agreement with Immanuel Baptist Church regarding the development of the proposed site. While they would prefer the site not be developed at all, they had reached a compromise that they would not oppose the development if the church agreed to four points as follows: 1) there would be a restricted use covenant between Walnut:Valley Property Owners Association and Immanuel Baptist Church regarding restrictions on the use of the new access road to Breckenridge and protection against encroachment into the agreed to buffer zones; 2) Immanuel Baptist would provide to Walnut Valley Property Owners Association a contractor's construction time line and keep Walnut Valley Association appraised of pre -construction plans; 3) Immanuel Baptist would provide a plan for two way communication during the construction project; 4) the new access road to Breckenridge would be constructed last contingent upon requirements that might be imposed by outside entities such as the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Highway Department, Federal Highway Authority, or the impact of project cost. Mr. Lemond commented about other issues which he felt if the request was approved, needed to be addressed between the church and the City as follows: a detailed hydrology study to address how water control and runoff during and after construction will affect the area where the plans call for the site to be drained to an area that lies within a floodplain; second, how the rebuilding of the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would impact an already bad `F' rated intersection at Markham and Shackleford, as well as traffic flow on Shackleford north of this intersection; third, ensure there is a serious look at other alternatives to the proposed access road to Breckenridge in conjunction with Highway Department plans to relieve problems where I-630, I-430 and Shackleford intersect. Five people spoke in opposition. Mary Zehr was concerned about the negative impact on Breckenridge traffic flow which she felt was already bad when the Bible Church has services or events, and the worsening of identified traffic problems at Markham and Shackleford. Cynthia Hester was 18 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 concerned that this development would decrease her property value, increase an existing water run-off drainage problem, and she wanted to be sure the buffers are maintained. Ruth Bell expressed that the League of Women Voters was concerned that this proposal would increase traffic problems, and that the right-of-way for the private access road to Breckenridge should be used for a public access road all along I-430 to pull traffic away from the residential streets. Susan McGee stated one of the more attractive aspects of this City 5 years ago was the green areas and beautiful trees. This was one of the last green areas around. She was very disappointed to find out that talk of preserving green areas and even turning this area into a park was all political rhetoric. Bernice Van Sickel was concerned over increased traffic on North Shackleford where she lives, and she felt that this development would decrease her property value. Jim Lawson, Planning & Development Director, responded to some of the concerns raised. He stated that Immanuel Baptist is planning to hire a police officer to direct traffic on Breckenridge at the access road when the access road would be open. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed access road would make it necessary to prohibit parking along Breckenridge in this area. Mr. Turner also stated that they would be looking closely at the impacts of this project on the floodplain along Breckenridge to make sure it was handled according to City standards. Commissioner Nunnley raised a question regarding his concern about the way the hearing was proceeding, and that he felt that Mr. Lawson was coming across as an advocate for the project. Mr. Lawson responded that he was simply trying to answer the concerns raised and that he was not advocating the project. Commissioner Downing asked about other levels of review necessary where the access road would transit the flood plain area near Breckenridge. Mr. McGetrick responded that they would have to meet City, State and Federal Highway Department, Corp of Engineers and FEMA requirements for construction in the floodplain. Commissioner Downing also had Mr. McGetrick explain what they would do through this project to help the drainage problems in front of the Kroger store. Mr. McGetrick explained that on site water 19 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 detention and drainage management would actually reduce the run-off to the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford from this property, and that when they rework the intersection to integrate the access to the church site, measures would be taken to lesson the existing drainage problems. Commissioner Downing concluded with the point that this project may improve the drainage problem at the intersection, but it would not eliminate it completely, nor would the applicant be required to totally eliminate that problem. Commissioner Ernest asked about any effort to make a land swap between the City and State to preserve this property as open space. Mr. Lawson stated that according to Bryan Day, City Parks Director, the idea had been considered but fell through, and that there were no plans to do that now. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Turner about the impact of this project on the drainage problem at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford. Mr. Turner verified that the project cannot worsen the current situation and probably would improve the situation. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Simmons about the impact of this site on traffic at Shackleford and Breckenridge, and Shackleford and Markham. Mr. Simmons stated that they did not study those particular intersections, but he agreed that church traffic would have some impact at those two locations. He also noted that the church's highest peak on Sunday morning was not the peak at Shackleford and Markham, and that the Wednesday evening inbound church traffic would occur towards the end of the peak at Markham and Shackleford, and that the outbound traffic would be after the peak at that intersection. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, stated that he felt the church traffic would not add to the peak problems at Markham and Shackleford because of the timing of their services. He added that the worst peak level of service `D' at Mara Lynn and Shackleford was an acceptable design level in an urban area. Commissioner Nunnley asked if an environmental impact study was required for this proposal, to which Mr. Turner responded no. To the Commissioner's questions of would the church be renting out their facilities and would they schedule religious concerts there, Dr. Horn responded he does not plan to rent out the facilities and concerts would occur only during special seasons like Christmas, and that 20 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 would occur only on Sunday. The Commissioners also asked about the decision that a level of service `D' would be acceptable when the next intersection, Markham and Shackleford, has been labeled as one of the most accident prone intersections in Little Rock. Mr. .Simmons responded that is the industry's acceptable design level of service for an urban intersection. Commissioner Rahman commented on the fact that the ordinance lists a church as an acceptable conditional use in an R-2 zoned area, but that he believed.that the concept of a church at the time that was included in the ordinance was different than what this proposal represents. He believed that the size of this church would have a detrimental effect on the area... He also asked why there was any concern about it being developed as an office or commercial site when it's zoned R-2. Mr. Lawson responded that the State owns the land and could put anything they want on it, including an office building, without getting approval from the City. The State put the walkway over the interstate originally with the thought in mind that there would be another state office building on this site, but they have never put one there. Staff's position is that this site will not be left as open space or be developed for residential use, but it will be developed. The City has no plan to, nor can they afford to, buy the land and develop it as a park. Therefore, staff believes the church would be acceptable and the preferred use. Commissioner Rector commented on statements that this is zoned R-2 and should be developed that way. He said he felt that a full development of this property with residential houses would actually have a larger negative impact on traffic than the church would, based on trips generated and the timing of those trips. Commissioner Faust asked if the landscaping proposed for this site would correspond with the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. Lewis responded that the proposed landscaping would exceed what the currently proposed landscape ordinance would require. Commissioner Ernest disputed the statement that this site could not be park land. He stated that there are ways through the political process and through the state legislature to see about securing this site for park use. 21 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Berry asked that the phased parking be better defined and asked if the area left for phase two would be left undisturbed until its construction. Commissioners Faust and Downing stated they felt the basic question was, would the church be an appropriate use at this proposed site, and would it be compatible without causing an adverse affect on the surrounding property. They both felt traffic was not the overriding question. Commissioner Downing asked Russell Lemond if the neighborhood felt residential development would be better than the proposed church or that the church would be the best use for this property.; Mr-.- Lemond responded that the association would prefer the site remain undeveloped and that they hadn't looked at residential development since that wasn't the proposal. Commissioner Muse asked Dr. Horn if they had considered alternate sites. Dr. Horn stated that they had looked at other sites but were trying to stay as close to downtown Little Rock as possible, maintain ministries in town and be more centrally located to the bulk of church members. They did not want to go way out on Chenal or Highway 10, so they didn't look at sites out there. Commissioner Berry said he felt this was a case of infill development and that the church would be a more benign use and would be appropriate for this site, and that the church has taken measures to mitigate impacts. He felt traffic will be a problem there no matter what. Commissioner Nunnley asked that they take a 5 minute recess before voting to take a breather and have a moment to think about it. The other Commissioners agreed. After the recess Vice Chair Berry commented that either party could appeal the outcome to the Board of Directors within 30 days. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Erwin to clarify a statement he made earlier regarding who bid on this site with the church. He stated that all the bidders bid on the property as though it were zoned R-2, but none of them were residential developers. All of them were speculators 22 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 attempting to buy the property to do something else with it. None of the bidders intended to try to develop the site with single family residential houses. He added that the State's minimum bid was such that there was no way you could sell it at a.price to justify residential development. Commissioner Muse commented that he would vote for the proposal for two main reasons. One was to help keep this church from moving farther out west. The second was that he felt that this development would have the least amount of impact as far as traffic was concerned. He also wanted the neighborhood's four points of agreement made with the church and stated by Mr. Lemond to be made part of any approved C.U.P. Dr. Horn affirmed that the points read by Mr. Lemond were correct. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, the drawing, the phased parking, and the four points of agreement made between the Property Owners Association and the church as stated by Mr. Lemond. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. 23 FILE NO.: Z-6784 NAME: Immanuel Baptist Church LOCATION: 501 North Shackleford Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Immanuel Baptist, contract pending/ Pat McGetrick PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of one main worship facility with expansion space and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property which is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This site is located on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Shackleford Road and Mara Lynn Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is Zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It is surrounded to the north, east and west by R-2 zoning. To the south the zoning is C-3, General Office, and to the southwest the zoning is 0-1, Quiet Office. There is a residential neighborhood to the north and northwest, a school to the west, Interstate 430 to the east, and a Kroger store to the south. This proposal would be a drastic change to the area. The site is currently a tree -covered 19 acre green island surrounded by development and paved areas. A church use would be compatible with the surrounding zones, but the size of this facility and the congregation raise concerns as to whether this particular proposal is compatible with this particular site. Staff has several questions regarding substantial issues that must be resolved prior to FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. being able to determine compatibility in this instance. Those issues are listed in the "Analysis." The Walnut Valley and the Beverly Hills Property Owners Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposal includes two driveways, one entering at the southwest corner from Shackleford, the other entering at the northeast corner from Breckenridge. There are challenges in both instances which are described in the "analysis". The proposal is for a 2500 seat assembly area. That would generate a parking requirement for 625 spaces, based on a 1 for 4 ratio, including 13 handicap accessible spaces, two of which must be van accessible. The proposal shows 1112 parking spaces initially, including 18 handicap accessible, and 240 additional spaces in the future. That is more than double the ordinance requirement and considered excessive by Staff. Part of the parking is shown to be provided by two two-level parking garages, with access to each level being at opposite ends of the parking structure and at two different levels. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The proposed areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the exception of the proposed street buffer along Interstate 430. The average full buffer depth in this area required by ordinance is 32 feet. The minimum depth with transfers is 21 feet. The average buffer depth shown in this area only averages about 8 feet and in areas is below the 6 foot minimum allowed at any given point. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north and northwest perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings that grow to a minimum height of 6 feet within three years. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree covered property. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. Because of the changes in grade elevations, it will be necessary to provide cross sections showing proposed treatments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Develop realignment of intersection (Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road intersection) to facilitate ingress and egress to the site. c. Provide a schematic layout of the signals at the intersection. d. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. e. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. f. Provide cross sections of site showing cuts, fills, retaining walls, prior to Planning Commission. g. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. h. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. i. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. j. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. k. Private drive to Breckenridge must be approved by Arkansas Highway Department and City of Little Rock. (Has sign been posted on Breckenridge? Has there been notification to Walnut Valley Church?) 1. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour intervals, and 100 year flood elevation is required. m. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. n. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 3 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. o. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 29-186(b) is required. p. Contact the ADP&E for approval prior to start of work is required. q. Contact the FEMA for conditional approval prior to start of work is required. r. Drive across grassy flat to Breckenridge encroaches on floodway. (140 feet wide floodway) 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. On site fire protection will be required. Existing water line easements should be shown on the plans. Any required relocation of existing water facilities will be at the developer's expense. Wastewater: Sewer is available on site for this project. Capacity Analysis required for this project, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Any relocation of Utility mains required for this project will be completed by the Developer at their expense. Records show a sewer line through this property. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. AR.FLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: Right-of-way requested for 30 feet around the entire perimeter of this property for possible 3 Phase overhead lines. Contact Entergy for more details. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free, 371-3752, at the fire department concerning placement of fire hydrants and turning radii. LATA: This site is near Route #5. Approved for transit purposes. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of 4 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. one main worship facility with expansion space and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property. The applicant has not stated what other activities will occur in the facility besides worship services. Information about other types of uses in the facility besides worship are important, such as classrooms, a fellowship hall, day care, private school, and recreation. These activities would impact the frequency and the hours of use of the site and are important factors to consider in the evaluation of the proposal. The proposal would take up most of the site except for a 50 foot buffer along the north and west sides, and initially the area left open in the southeast corner for future development. The proposal did not state if the 50 foot buffer would be undisturbed. Further conversations revealed that the design is not far enough along to know if the buffer could be left undisturbed. All setback requirements appear to be met, but the height would exceed standards. The maximum allowed height in R-2 zoning is 35 feet and the proposed building is about 83 feet tall with a height to the top of the steeple proposed to be 145 feet. However, Staff was told that these are preliminary estimated maximums. Design is not far enough along to know for sure. The site is currently rather hilly with contours ranging from a low of 420 to a high of 537, with several hills and valleys scattered throughout. Finished contours range from 420 to 530. Staff needs to have some idea of how the engineers propose to place the proposed development on this site by having cut and fill profiles and cross sections, and retaining wall descriptions to review. Information provided shows walls ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall. We need to see how the final structures will look to people looking into the site when it's completed by having elevations so the impact to the surrounding area can be assessed. The applicant needs to show how landscaping will blend in with the various grades, walls, cuts and overall treatment across the site through cross sections. The applicant should explain 5 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) how the traffic from a 2500 seat church will be managed and what impact it will have on the surrounding area at the end of services. Access is another major issue that also currently has many unanswered questions. The northeast driveway will cross interstate highway right-of-way and require the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department's approval. The southwest driveway must line up with Mara Lynn entering the opposite side of the intersection. To do that, some sort of a joint agreement will have to be worked out with Kroger because to get the intersection to match with what's already there, they will have to use part of Kroger property. This site cannot work without two separated access points to handle traffic for church services or special events, and the ability to provide two is not confirmed at this time. Without answers to, and additional information for most of the above issues, Staff cannot realistically evaluate this proposal in order to provide well developed recommendations to the Commission. These evaluations and recommendations will be important to the Commission as it attempts to weigh new development against neighborhood opposition which we know exists. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes consideration of the requested conditional use permit to be premature at this time due to the status of the applicant's design for this site. Therefore, Staff recommends this application be deferred until the applicant can answer the questions and provide the information requested by Staff. How long a deferral depends on the applicant determining when they can provide the information. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and reviewed the issues of concern and information needed. The review was fairly short since the questions were straight forward and the answers weren't readily available. 6 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. Besides the review of the issues as described in the Staff Report, Staff emphasized that this proposal would cause a major change to the area and the importance of firming up the ability to provide two separated access points. Staff also mentioned the idea of off site parking areas from which to either bus members, or to be located close enough to walk. The area at the east end of the I-430 pedestrian bridge was mentioned. There being no further points to make, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action pending the receipt of the requested information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pat McGetrick, engineer for the project, and Muriel Lewis, architect for the project were present representing the application. There was one other person in favor and nine persons opposed who registered at the hearing. Staff presented the item with a revised recommendation for approval subject to compliance with certain conditions. Staff received more information between the time the original report above was written for the Commission and the time of this meeting. The availability of this additional information which Staff was ready to present to the Commission resulted in the change in Staff's recommendation to one of approval with conditions. The conditions recommended were as follows: 1) Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances; 2) Comply with Public Works Comments in the above report; 3) All exterior lighting must be low intensity, directed inward and downward to the property and not towards any residential area; 4) Maintain a minimum 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the north and west sides of the property except to the northeast and southwest access points; 5) No excavation permit nor building permit would be issued for this site until all ordinance requirements are met, until State Highway Department and the City have approved the access road to Breckenridge, and until City requirements for the access at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road are satisfied. Staff also recommended approval of a variance to allow the proposed height for the building and the steeple. VA FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) Mr. Lawson, Planning and Development Director, stated that several people had suggested that the Commission delay its consideration of this item until Highway Department approval for the access to Breckenridge is obtained, until staff receives complete detail finished drawings for the church structure, and other detail information. He stated that final approval and detail information is far off. He felt that the question of use and appropriateness of the location for this proposed church could be answered now, and the other details could be dealt with through conditions placed in the C.U.P. He added that one condition would certainly be, and the church agrees, that this proposal cannot work without the approved access to Breckenridge. So without that road and meeting other conditions the Commission feels are appropriate, there would be no C.U.P., it would become void. Commissioner Nunnley asked if any thought for limiting future growth had been examined. He was concerned that the church would soon be at capacity at this proposed location and would be back in a year or two wanting to expand. Mr. Lawson responded that this proposed church is much larger than their existing church and it gives them a lot of capacity. Additional services could be added to serve many more people quickly without any building expansion. Dr. Rex Horn, the applicant and Pastor of Immanuel Baptist, began by stating that the initial construction would not use all the property and the proposed building would hold a lot more people than the existing church. Currently their services average 1200-1300 on Sunday and about half that on Wednesday. Therefore, he felt the property would be adequate into the foreseeable future, particularly since the church membership growth is almost stagnant right now. He continued with an explanation of factors considered in choosing a new site, and in particular, this site, and that they were working diligently to address all concerns with the intent of being good neighbors in solving the issues. Mr. William Sutton, a Trustee of the church, spoke in favor of the proposal and stated he felt the church had taken responsible steps in this process and that the proposal is sensitive to the neighborhood and addresses their concerns. He added that the church does not want to create enemies by moving to this location. 8 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homes Association, began the opposition presentation. He showed several slides showing streets in the area covered with traffic, and the proposed site as it is now. He touched on several issues: existing traffic; size of the streets around the site; the fact that this land is state owned and that not developing it would not affect a developer's investment; the huge size of a 20 acre church complex; and, how the area had already been changed and affected in the past ten years as shown by an aerial photo. In his view, the only "pro" for this project is it would be better than a commercial site. The "cons" included the following: the proposed church's size would have a commercial type of impact on Walnut Valley and West Little Rock; the nature and impact of the access road to Breckenridge; the impact of decreasing options for the Highway Department to use this area to help alleviate the congestion at the intersection of I-630 & I-430; this size of church would be beyond the scope envisioned when the ordinance included a church as an allowed conditional use in a residential zoned area; there is no room to expand Shackleford north of this site and it already carries a traffic volume daily that is larger than many 4 -lane roads in the City; and there are too many unanswered questions of how this site would be developed at this point. He concluded with the point that he felt this project would be like trying to put a large square peg in a small round hole. With a visual demonstration he showed how that doesn't work. Patricia Keightley spoke in opposition mainly because she felt the project would result in a decrease in property values to all adjoining property. Jacqueline Wright was opposed because she felt the access road to Breckenridge would increase an existing traffic problem there. She felt that problem results in part from the Bible Church which is located close to where the access road would enter Breckenridge. The two churches would have similar high traffic times. She also felt that the appropriate development for the site is only single family which would match its current zoning. Rich Livdahl spoke in opposition because he felt it would have a negative impact on traffic, health and safety. His issues included backup of water which already occurs at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford during storms, and the negative visual impact of such a large building. Gary Barnett spoke in opposition emphasizing the negative affects of noise, congestion, dirt, run-off, etc., he felt would occur during the FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) construction phase, in addition to the impacts of the finished church. Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt he did not have all the information he needed to make a decision. He wanted the Commissioners to have a chance to review the traffic study, and to receive an answer about the issue of approval of the access road to Breckenridge which was such an integral part of the project working. Mr. Lawson responded that all the information won't be developed to the degree he was asking for unless the City says the use is approved. Then the church would still have to be able to meet all the conditions the Commission included in the C.U.P. or it would become void. Commissioner Lowry stated that he was astounded that the Commission was not asked to defer this item based on the amount of missing information. He felt that since the traffic study, which he sees as an important part of the information needed to make a decision, was just received and that the Commissioners hadn't had an opportunity to see it, plus the amount of other missing information was reason to defer. Mr. Lawson responded that much of the information the Commissioners want is what Staff would like to present to them tonight. Commissioner Hawn commented that he preferred to have reports given to him so he could read them himself, rather than trying to have all the information presented during the Commission hearing. He then made a motion to defer the item. During discussion about the motion, Commissioner Downing had several questions also about missing information that he felt he needed to be able to decide if this request was appropriate for this location. Mr. Lawson responded that Staff was trying to answer many of those questions, but the Commission wasn't allowing the information available to be presented. Dr. Horn responded, when asked by the Chair, that they were not in favor of a deferral. He felt they had the people present to respond to the questions the Commissioners were 10 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) asking, plus a deferral to February 17 would push them past a deadline they had in regard to the contract to purchase. A vote was taken on the motion to defer. It failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 nays, 1 absent. Discussion continued. Greg Simmons of Peters & Associates Engineers presented the traffic study. They gathered their data on Sunday during times they felt would be maximum peak times. He explained in general the methodology they used to conduct their study, and the recommendations to improve the flow. The resulting conclusion was that the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would operate at an acceptable level "C" with the suggestions in place during the entering peak period on Sunday morning. That would be a drop from level "B" that it currently operates at during those times. The exiting peak period would operate at level "D". He added that level "D" is an accepted design level for traffic engineers at peak periods. When looking at the other access from Breckenridge, they assumed a 36 foot wide, three lane road, and that only 25% of the traffic would flow to and from that direction. Their conclusion was that intersection would operate at level "B" with only "Stop Sign Control" at both the entering and exiting peak periods on Sunday mornings. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the traffic analysis for the access road to Breckenridge included the Bible Church traffic. The answer was yes. He added that when that church is in session, people park along the street to such a degree that you have only one lane open. More traffic through there would add to an existing problem. Commissioner Rahman asked about the impact the church would have on Wednesday night traffic. Mr. Simmons responded that was not studied because it was considered to be less than on Sunday. When asked to estimate the current level of service on Wednesday evenings at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, Mr. Simmons responded he would estimate it to be level "B" or at worst a "C". Commissioner Nunnley commented that he lives near the current Immanuel Church site and that the impact of the church traffic during week nights is negligible. Commissioner Berry mentioned the point that he felt it would be very helpful for the neighborhood to see for 11 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) comparison what the impact would be if a retail or some other commercial development moved into this site. He felt the state will sell this property and it could be to a commercial developer. Commissioner Lowry asked Dr. Horn what he would expect his growth to be over the next ten years. He replied he would hope it would grow to 2000. Then in reply to the Commissioner's follow on question, Mr. Simmons replied that their study was based on the traffic estimated to be generated from the full 2500 seat capacity, not a smaller number. Commissioner Hawn asked Dr. Horn what efforts he had made to be a good neighbor to Walnut Valley so far. His response was that he had offered the following to the neighborhood: children's summer programs and basketball leagues, making the family life center available to the neighborhood, including having one night a month when the neighborhood association could use the facilities free of charge, making a contribution to the Walnut Valley park, working with the neighbors regarding buffers and the impact of the access road to Breckenridge, self-defense classes for women, and senior adult activities and lunches. Commissioner Berry commented on what he saw as an excessive amount of parking since they have proposed about twice the amount required by City ordinance. He felt that should be cut down and then provide more buffer between the residential area. Commissioner Faust pointed out that the ordinance states that the Commission's charge is to review the compatibility of a proposed conditional use with the area, and review the measures being taken to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. She continued that she had problems with the compatibility that this large a church on this plot of land would have in the close proximity with the established neighborhood. She still had many questions before she could decide. Her questions included how the church would look in place, and what would King's Mountain look like after the church was built. She felt elevations and cross- sections could help answer those two questions. She also felt the site was over parked. Commissioner Rahman called upon Mark McGee to state his concerns. He stated that he was concerned that the traffic 12 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. study data was gathered on December 19, 1999, which was during Christmas break when many people were out of town and schools were not in session. Also he was concerned over the church adding a school later which would increase traffic every weekday that the school was in session. Commissioner Berry called upon Lisa Ring to add her comments. She was concerned that when the traffic data was gathered, Terry School across the street from the proposed site was not in session, and she hadn't heard the school mentioned during the discussion. She felt that some of the school traffic would change the results because they have after school programs that let out at the same times the church would be having evening activities and Wednesday evening services. She felt that this was not the place for this big of a church, that there's too much in that area already. Commissioner Berry made the point that if the church wanted to add a school in the future, they would have to come back before the Commission to modify their C.U.P.. Mr. Lawson added that the application does not ask for a school or any day care, it's just for the church and "family life" functions, and that would be all that would be allowed without coming back before the Commission. Mr. Lawson responded to the question of drainage by calling upon Bob Turner, Acting Public Works Director. Mr. Turner called up the project engineer, Pat McGetrick to review what they would do to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. McGetrick stated that in redoing the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, they would be reworking the drainage to handle the run-off from the church site, and thereby reducing existing problems too. He added that they would meet City requirements for on site water detention and discharge from the site. He added that the worst cuts currently anticipated were 25-30 feet in 10-155 of the site. Commissioner Downing asked more questions of Mr. McGetrick regarding the buffers to the residential areas north and west. Mr. McGetrick replied that the buffer along the north varies from 60 to 100 feet from the proposed paved area. Muriel Lewis, architect for the project, added that along the west side the buffer between the property line and the paved area would be 40-45 feet. In both buffer areas they plan to add additional evergreens before construction 13 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) begins to help provide a denser visual and sound buffer right from the beginning. Mr. Lewis explained the concept of the building and how it would fit in with the grades. The result would be that there would be at most two floors above grade and the parking areas would follow the grades as much as possible. Commissioner Rahman stated he still needed more information before he could make a decision. He wanted to see a traffic study that included the time frame when school is open, including Wednesday nights, along with the "worse" conditions, and what the traffic would be like with a residential R-2 development on this site. He also wanted to see cross-sections and elevations. Commissioner Berry requested that traffic model impacts be provided for other types of development on the site such as office, commercial, and multifamily. Commissioner Faust made the point that if the neighborhoods want to preserve green space, probably a way to do it is through City parks or through the neighborhood associations themselves buying land in order to preserve it as green space. Commissioner Rector added that information needed for the deferred meeting should include, besides traffic studies and elevations, increased buffer considerations and why the requested amount of parking is needed. A motion was made to defer the application to a special meeting to be held on February 3, 2000. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: A revised site plan for the proposed new Immanuel Baptist Church was provided to Staff on January 24, 2000. The following information summarizes the major changes in that plan. The green buffer area to the north and northwest would be increased to a minimum of 100 feet, with 75 feet of the northern buffer and about 30 feet of the northwestern buffer remaining undisturbed. The building roof peak height above grade would be about 90 feet on the north side and the building would be approximately 130 feet further to the south than originally proposed. The steeple 14 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) height above grade on the north side would be about 145 feet, or 55 feet above the roof peak. The two-level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building, and one of those levels would still be below grade. The south parking area would be at grade and be sloped down to about the same level as the Kroger parking lot on the south side. The future additional building that had been shown in the southeast portion of the property, has been removed and replaced with at -grade parking. The proposed total parking has been reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces. (The ordinance minimum requirement is 625 spaces.) The long parking area originally proposed along the entire Shackleford Road frontage has been removed. There would be a few spaces in the general area of the front entrance which still faces Shackleford Road. The footprint of the building would be a little longer running east/west, but smaller running north/south. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 3, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pastor of Immanuel Baptist; Jim Erwin, church representative; Muriel Lewis, project architect; Gregg Simmons, Peters Associates Engineers; and Pat McGetrick, project engineer, were present representing the application. There were 6 registered objectors, 1 registered proponent, and one person registered as "not opposed", who were present. Staff presented the item with a revised project proposal and with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed above in the January 6 Planning Commission Action minutes. Condition 4 has been changed to read: "Maintain a minimum 100 foot buffer on both the north and west sides, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed." The revised proposal is: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road, consisting of one main church facility with accompanying parking, 100 foot buffers on both the north and west sides, and access to Breckenridge Drive and the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Roads. The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential." The changes made were to drop the request for expansion space on the east side of the main building, to 15 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. drop the future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property, and to increase the buffers to 100 feet on the north and west sides. The major changes in the proposed project were presented by Staff as follows: increased buffers from 50 to 100 feet on the north and west sides of the property, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed; a two level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building; the south side parking lot would be at grade and larger than originally proposed; the additional building on the southeast portion of the property was deleted; total parking was reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces and would be built in two phases, with phase one containing 850 spaces. Phase 1 parking would include all the north side parking area and about one-half of the total south parking area closest to the building. Staff also advised the Commission that since the January 6 meeting, an additional letter and two phone calls were received in opposition to the proposal. A copy of the letter had been given to each Commissioner. The main concerns expressed in the phone calls were traffic and a negative impact on the adjoining property. Muriel Lewis showed a drawing and reviewed the changes made to the site plan in response to Staff and neighborhood concerns. He pointed out the following changes on the drawing: the building was moved to the south and east; a minimum of 100 foot buffers were left on the north and west; he described that the north side parking deck had been moved 126 feet south and how it would be built partially into the ground and not be very visible; he stated the majority of the parking was now proposed on the south side of the building and property; the building height was lowered 5 feet and it had a narrower profile from the east and west views. Mr. Lewis referred to a letter from the State Highway Department that had been given to the Commissioners which stated that the proposed access road to Breckenridge across Interstate 430 right-of- way appeared feasible, but final approval authority would lie with the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Lewis also explained that the access road to Breckenridge would have evergreen trees planted along it to buffer it from the houses in that area. 16 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) Mr. Gregg Simmons, from Peters and Associates Engineers, presented the supplemental traffic study results. He stated the additional data results showed that Wednesday evenings would have a level of service `B' at both access points, Breckenridge and Mara Lynn/Shackleford; (this included an assumption that the service would have about 60% of the number of people that come on Sunday morning). They also found that the alternative development scenarios of a 380 unit multi -family, 200,000 square foot office, and 152,000 square foot commercial development, would all operate at level of service `D' at both the a.m. and the p.m. peak volumes five days a week. Pat McGetrick explained the cuts into existing grades that would result from the proposed project. They would be as follows: north side, virtually none; northwest corner would be cut 25 to 28 feet; the ridge in the middle of the property where the church building would be located would be cut 35 foot; they deleted the proposed retaining walls along Shackleford and replaced them with graded 4 to 1 slopes; and there would be 3.5 foot maximum cuts in the area where the road would go out to Breckenridge. Curtis Thomas, retired executive pastor for the Bible Church of Little Rock on Breckenridge, asked that something be placed in writing or as a condition in the C.U.P. that if traffic becomes a larger problem due to Immanuel Baptist that it would be worked out. Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homeowners Association, stated that the Association had reached an agreement with Immanuel Baptist Church regarding the development of the proposed site. While they would prefer the site not be developed at all, they had reached a compromise that they would not oppose the development if the church agreed to four points as follows: 1) there would be a restricted use covenant between Walnut Valley Property Owners Association and Immanuel Baptist Church regarding restrictions on the use of the new access road to Breckenridge and protection against encroachment into the agreed to buffer zones; 2) Immanuel Baptist would provide to Walnut Valley Property Owners Association a contractor's construction time line and keep Walnut Valley Association appraised of pre -construction plans; 3) Immanuel Baptist would provide a plan for two way communication during the construction project; 4) the new access road to Breckenridge would be constructed last contingent upon 17 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. requirements that might be imposed by outside entities such as the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Highway Department, Federal Highway Authority, or the impact of project cost. Mr. Lemond commented about other issues which he felt if the request was approved, needed to be addressed between the church and the City as follows: a detailed hydrology study to address how water control and runoff during and after construction will affect the area where the plans call for the site to be drained to an area that lies within a floodplain; second, how the rebuilding of the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would impact an already bad `F' rated intersection at Markham and Shackleford, as well as traffic flow on Shackleford north of this intersection; third, ensure there is a serious look at other alternatives to the proposed access road to Breckenridge in conjunction with Highway Department plans to relieve problems where I-630, I-430 and Shackleford intersect. Five people spoke in opposition. Mary Zehr was concerned about the negative impact on Breckenridge traffic flow which she felt was already bad when the Bible Church has services or events, and the worsening of identified traffic problems at Markham and Shackleford. Cynthia Hester was concerned that this development would decrease her property value, increase an existing water run-off drainage problem, and she wanted to be sure the buffers are maintained. Ruth Bell expressed that the League of Women Voters was concerned that this proposal would increase traffic problems, and that the right-of-way for the private access road to Breckenridge should be used for a public access road all along I-430 to pull traffic away from the residential streets. Susan McGee stated one of the more attractive aspects of this City 5 years ago was the green areas and beautiful trees. This was one of the last green areas around. She was very disappointed to find out that talk of preserving green areas and even turning this area into a park was all political rhetoric. Bernice Van Sickel was concerned over increased traffic on North Shackleford where she lives, and she felt that this development would decrease her property value. Jim Lawson, Planning & Development Director, responded to some of the concerns raised. He stated that Immanuel Baptist is planning to hire a police officer to direct traffic on Breckenridge at the access road when the access 18 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont. road would be open. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed access road would make it necessary to prohibit parking along Breckenridge in this area. Mr. Turner also stated that they would be looking closely at the impacts of this project on the floodplain along Breckenridge to make sure it was handled according to City standards. Commissioner Nunnley raised a question regarding his concern about the way the hearing was proceeding, and that he felt that Mr. Lawson was coming across as an advocate for the project. Mr. Lawson responded that he was simply trying to answer the concerns raised and that he was not advocating the project. Commissioner Downing asked about other levels of review necessary where the access road would transit the flood plain area near Breckenridge. Mr. McGetrick responded that they would have to meet City, State and Federal Highway Department, Corp of Engineers and FEMA requirements for construction in the floodplain. Commissioner Downing also had Mr. McGetrick explain what they would do through this project to help the drainage problems in front of the Kroger store. Mr. McGetrick explained that on site water detention and drainage management would actually reduce the run-off to the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford from this property, and that when they rework the intersection to integrate the access to the church site, measures would be taken to lesson the existing drainage problems. Commissioner Downing concluded with the point that this project may improve the drainage problem at the intersection, but it would not eliminate it completely, nor would the applicant be required to totally eliminate that problem. Commissioner Ernest asked about any effort to make a land swap between the City and State to preserve this property as open space. Mr. Lawson stated that according to Bryan Day, City Parks Director, the idea had been considered but fell through, and that there were no plans to do that now. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Turner about the impact of this project on the drainage problem at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford. Mr. Turner verified that the project cannot worsen the current situation and probably would improve the situation. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Simmons about the impact of this site on traffic at 19 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) Shackleford and Breckenridge, and Shackleford and Markham. Mr. Simmons stated that they did not study those particular intersections, but he agreed that church traffic would have some impact at those two locations. He also noted that the church's highest peak on Sunday morning was not the peak at Shackleford and Markham, and that the Wednesday evening inbound church traffic would occur towards the end of the peak at Markham and Shackleford, and that the outbound traffic would be after the peak at that intersection. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, stated that he felt the church traffic would not add to the peak problems at Markham and Shackleford because of the timing of their services. He added that the worst peak level of service `D' at Mara Lynn and Shackleford was an acceptable design level in an urban area. Commissioner Nunnley asked if an environmental impact study was required for this proposal, to which Mr. Turner responded no. To the Commissioner's questions of would the church be renting out their facilities and would they schedule religious concerts there, Dr. Horn responded he does not plan to rent out the facilities and concerts would occur only during special seasons like Christmas, and that would occur only on Sunday. The Commissioners also asked about the decision that a level of service `D' would be acceptable when the next intersection, Markham and Shackleford, has been labeled as one of the most accident prone intersections in Little Rock. Mr. Simmons responded that is the industry's acceptable design level of service for an urban intersection. Commissioner Rahman commented on the fact that the ordinance lists a church as an acceptable conditional use in an R-2 zoned area, but that he believed that the concept of a church at the time that was included in the ordinance was different than what this proposal represents. He believed that the size of this church would have a detrimental effect on the area. He also asked why there was any concern about it being developed as an office or commercial site when it's zoned R-2. Mr. Lawson responded that the State owns the land and could put anything they want on it, including an office building, without getting approval from the City. The State put the walkway over the interstate originally with the thought in mind that there would be another state office building on this site, but they have never put one there. Staff's position is that this site will not be left as open space or be developed 20 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) for residential use, but it will be developed. The City has no plan to, nor can they afford to, buy the land and develop it as a park. Therefore, staff believes the church would be acceptable and the preferred use. Commissioner Rector commented on statements that this is zoned R-2 and should be developed that way. He said he felt that a full development of this property with residential houses would actually have a larger negative impact on traffic than the church would, based on trips generated and the timing of those trips. Commissioner Faust asked if the landscaping proposed for this site would correspond with the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. Lewis responded that the proposed landscaping would exceed what the currently proposed landscape ordinance would require. Commissioner Ernest disputed the statement that this site could not be park land. He stated that there are ways through the political process and through the state legislature to see about securing this site for park use. Commissioner Berry asked that the phased parking be better defined and asked if the area left for phase two would be left undisturbed until its construction. Commissioners Faust and Downing stated they felt the basic question was, would the church be an appropriate use at this proposed site, and would it be compatible without causing an adverse affect on the surrounding property. They both felt traffic was not the overriding question. Commissioner Downing asked Russell Lemond if the neighborhood felt residential development would be better than the proposed church or that the church would be the best use for this property. Mr. Lemond responded that the association would prefer the site remain undeveloped and that they hadn't looked at residential development since that wasn't the proposal. Commissioner Muse asked Dr. Horn if they had considered alternate sites. Dr. Horn stated that they had looked at other sites but were trying to stay as close to downtown Little Rock as possible, maintain ministries in town and be more centrally located to the bulk of church members. They 21 FILE NO.: Z-6784 (Cont.) did not want to go way out on Chenal or Highway 10, so they didn't look at sites out there. Commissioner Berry said he felt this was a case of infill development and that the church would be a more benign use and would be appropriate for this site, and that the church has taken measures to mitigate impacts. He felt traffic will be a problem there no matter what. Commissioner Nunnley asked that they take a 5 minute recess before voting to take a breather and have a moment to think about it. The other Commissioners agreed. After the recess Vice Chair Berry commented that either party could appeal the outcome to the Board of Directors within 30 days. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Erwin to clarify a statement he made earlier regarding who bid on this site with the church. He stated that all the bidders bid on the property as though it were zoned R-2, but none of them were residential developers. All of them were speculators attempting to buy the property to do something else with it. None of the bidders intended to try to develop the site with single family residential houses. He added that the State's minimum bid was such that there was no way you could sell it at a price to justify residential development. Commissioner Muse commented that he would vote for the proposal for two main reasons. One was to help keep this church from moving farther out west. The second was that he felt that this development would have the least amount of impact as far as traffic was concerned. He also wanted the neighborhood's four points of agreement made with the church and stated by Mr. Lemond to be made part of any approved C.U.P. Dr. Horn affirmed that the points read by Mr. Lemond were correct. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, the drawing, the phased parking, and the four points of agreement made between the Property Owners Association and the church as stated by Mr. Lemond. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. 22 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Z-6784 Immanuel Baptist Church 501 North Shackleford Road Immanuel Baptist, contract pending/ Pat McGetrick PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of one main worship facility with expansion space, and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property which is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This site is located on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Shackleford Road and Mara Lynn Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is Zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It is surrounded to the north, east and west by R-2 zoning. To the south the zoning is C-3, General Office, and to the southwest the zoning is 0-1, Quiet Office. There is a residential neighborhood to the north and northwest, a school to the west, Interstate 430 to the east, and a Kroger store to the south. This proposal would be a drastic change to the area. The site is currently a tree -covered 19 acre green island surrounded by development and paved areas. A church use would be compatible with the surrounding zones but the size of this facility and the 11 congregation raise concerns as to whether this particular proposal is compatible with this particular site. Staff has several questions regarding substantial issues that must be resolved prior to February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 being able to determine compatibility in this instance. Those issues are listed in the "Analysis." The Walnut Valley and the Beverly Hills Property Owners Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: 4. The proposal includes two driveways, one entering at the southwest corner from Shackleford, the other entering at the northeast corner from Breckenridge. There are challenges in both instances which are described in the "analysis". The proposal is for a 2500 seat assembly area. That would generate a parking requirement for 625 spaces, based on a 1 for 4 ratio, including 13 handicap accessible spaces, two of which must be van accessible. The proposal shows 1112 parking spaces initially, including 18 handicap accessible, and 240 additional spaces in the future. That is more than double the ordinance requirement and considered excessive by Staff. Part of the parking is shown to be provided by two two-level parking garages, with access to each level being at opposite ends of the parking structure and at two different levels. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The proposed areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the exception of the proposed street buffer along Interstate 430. The average full buffer depth in this area required by ordinance is 32 feet. The minimum depth with transfers is 21 feet. The average buffer depth shown in this area only averages about 8 feet and in areas is below the 6 foot minimum allowed at any given point. A 6 foot high opaque screen -is required along the north and northwest perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings that grow to a minimum height of 6 feet within three years. 2 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree covered property. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. Because of the changes in grade elevations, it will be necessary to provide cross sections showing proposed treatments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Develop realignment of intersection (Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road intersection) to facilitate ingress and egress to the site. c. Provide a schematic layout of the signals at the intersection. d. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. e. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. f. Provide cross sections of site showing cuts, fills, retaining walls, prior to Planning Commission. g. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. h. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. i. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. j. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. k. Private drive to Breckenridge must be approved by Arkansas Highway Department and City of Little Rock. (Has sign been posted on Breckenridge? Has there been notification to Walnut Valley Church?) 1. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour intervals, and 100 year flood elevation is required. m. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 3 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 n. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. o. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 29-186(b) is required. p. Contact the ADP&E for approval prior to start of work is required. q. Contact the FEMA for conditional approval prior to start of work is required. r. Drive across grassy flat to Breckenridge encroaches on floodway. (140 feet wide floodway) 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. On site fire protection will be required. Existing water line easements should be shown on the plans. Any required relocation of existing water facilities will be at the developer's expense. Wastewater: Sewer is available on site for this project. Capacity Analysis required for this project, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Any relocation of Utility mains required for this project will be completed by the Developer at their expense. Records show a sewer line through this property. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: Right-of-way requested for 30 feet around the entire perimeter of this property for possible 3 Phase overhead lines. Contact Entergy for more details. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free, 371-3752, at the fire department concerning placement of fire hydrants and turning radii. CATA: This site is near Route #5. Approved for transit purposes. 4 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: FILE NO.: Z-6784 The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road consisting of one main worship facility with expansion space and accompanying parking, and a future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property. The applicant has not stated what other activities will occur in the facility besides worship services. Information about other types of uses in the facility besides worship are important, such as classrooms, a fellowship hall, day care, private school, and recreation. These activities would impact the frequency and the hours of use of the site and are important factors to consider in the evaluation of the proposal. The proposal would take up most of the site except for a 50 foot buffer along the north and west sides, and initially the area left -open in the southeast corner for future development. The proposal did not state if the 50 foot buffer would be undisturbed. Further conversations revealed that the design is not far enough along to know if the buffer could be left undisturbed. All setback requirements appear to be met, but the. height would exceed standards. The maximum allowed height in R-2 zoning is 35 feet and the proposed building is about 83 feet tall with a height to the top of the steeple proposed to be 145 feet. However, Staff was told that these are preliminary estimated maximums. Design is not far enough along to know for sure. The site is currently rather hilly with contours ranging from a low of 420 to a high of 537, with several hills and valleys scattered throughout. Finished contours range from 420 to 530. Staff needs to have some idea of how the engineers propose to place the proposed development on this site by having cut and fill profiles and cross sections, and retaining wall descriptions to review. Information provided shows walls ranging from 10 to 30 feet tall. 5 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 We need to see how the final structures will look to people looking into the site when it's completed by having elevations so the impact to the surrounding area can be assessed. The applicant needs to show how landscaping will blend in with the various grades, walls, cuts and overall treatment across the site through cross sections. The applicant should explain how the traffic from a 2500 seat church will be managed and what impact it will have on the surrounding area at the end of services. Access is another major issue that also currently has many unanswered questions. The northeast driveway will cross interstate highway right-of-way and require the, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department's approval. The southwest driveway must line up with Mara Lynn entering the opposite side of the intersection. To do that, some sort of a joint agreement will have to be worked out with Kroger because to get the intersection to match with what's already there, they will have to use part of Kroger property. This site cannot work without two separated access points to handle traffic for church services or special events, and the ability to provide two is not confirmed at this time. Without answers to, and additional information for most of the above issues, Staff cannot realistically evaluate this proposal in order to provide well developed recommendations to the Commission. These evaluations and recommendations will be important to the Commission as it attempts to weigh new development against neighborhood opposition which we know exists. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes consideration of the requested conditional use permit to be premature at this time due to the status of the applicant's design for this site. Therefore, Staff recommends this application be deferred until the applicant can answer the questions and provide the information requested by Staff. How long a deferral depends on the applicant determining when they can provide the information. 11 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z-6784 (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and reviewed the issues of concern and information needed. The review was fairly short since the questions were straight forward and the answers weren't readily available. Besides the review of the issues as described in the Staff Report, Staff emphasized that this proposal would cause a major change to the area and the importance of firming up the ability to provide two separated access points. Staff also mentioned the idea of off site parking areas from which to either bus members, or to be located close enough to walk. The area at the east end of the I-430 pedestrian bridge was mentioned. There being no further points to make, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action pending the receipt of the requested information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pat McGetrick, engineer for the project, and Muriel Lewis, architect for the project were present representing the application. There was one other person in favor and nine persons opposed who registered at the hearing. Staff presented the item with a revised recommendation for approval subject to compliance with certain conditions. Staff received more information between the time the original report above was written for the Commission and the time of this meeting. The availability of this additional information which Staff was ready to present to the Commission resulted in the change in Staff's recommendation to one of approval with conditions. The conditions recommended were as follows: 1) Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances; 2) Comply with Public Works Comments in the above report; 3) All exterior lighting must be low intensity, directed inward and downward to the property and not towards any residential area; 4) Maintain. a minimum 50 foot undisturbed buffer 7 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 along the north and west sides of the property except to the northeast and southwest access points; 5) No excavation permit nor building permit would be issued for this site until all ordinance requirements are met, until State Highway Department and the City have approved the access road to Breckenridge, and until City requirements for the access at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Road are satisfied. Staff also recommended approval of a variance to allow the proposed height for the building and the steeple. Mr. Lawson, Planning and Development Director, stated that several people had suggested that the Commission delay its consideration of this item until Highway Department, approval for the access to Breckenridge is obtained, until staff receives complete detail finished drawings for the church structure, and other detail information. He stated that final approval and detail information is far off. He felt that the question of use and appropriateness of the location for this proposed church could be answered now, and the other details could be dealt with through conditions placed in the C.U.P. He added that one condition would certainly be, and the church agrees, that this proposal cannot work without the approved access to Breckenridge. So without that road and meeting other conditions the Commission feels are appropriate, there would be no C.U.P., it would become void. Commissioner Nunnley asked if any thought for limiting future growth had been examined. He was concerned that the church would soon be at capacity at this proposed location and would be back in a year or two wanting to expand. Mr. Lawson responded that this proposed church is much larger than their existing church and it gives them a lot of capacity. Additional services could be added to serve many more people quickly without any building expansion. Dr. Rex Horn,- the applicant and Pastor of Immanuel Baptist, began by stating that the initial construction would not use all the property and the proposed building would hold a lot more people than the existing church. Currently their services average 1200-1300 on Sunday and about half that on Wednesday. Therefore, he felt the property would be adequate into the foreseeable future, particularly since the church membership growth is almost stagnant right now. He continued with an explanation of factors considered in 8 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 choosing a new site, and in particular, this site, and that they were working diligently to address all concerns with the intent of being good neighbors in solving the issues. Mr. William Sutton, a Trustee of the church, spoke in favor of the proposal and stated he felt the church had taken responsible steps in this process and that the proposal is sensitive to the neighborhood and addresses their concerns. He added that the church does not want to create enemies by moving to this location. Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homes Association, began the opposition presentation. He showed several slides showing streets in the area covered with traffic, and the proposed site as it is now. He touched on several issues: existing traffic; size of the streets around the site; the fact that this land is state owned and that not developing it would not affect a developer's investment; the huge size of a 20 acre church complex; and, how the area had already been changed and affected in the past ten years as shown by an aerial photo. In his view, the only "pro" for this project is it would be better than a commercial site. The "cons" included the following: the proposed church's size would have a commercial type of impact on Walnut Valley and West Little Rock; the nature and impact of the access road to Breckenridge; the impact of decreasing options for the Highway Department to use this area to help alleviate the congestion at the intersection of I-630 & I-430; this size of church would be beyond the scope envisioned when the ordinance included a church as an allowed conditional use in a residential zoned area; there is no room to expand Shackleford north of this site and it already carries a traffic volume daily that is larger than many 4 -lane roads in the City; and there are too many unanswered questions of how this site would be developed at this point. He concluded with the point that he felt this project would be like trying to put a large square peg in a small round hole. With a visual demonstration he showed how that doesn't work. Patricia Keightley spoke in opposition mainly because she felt the project would result in a decrease in property values to all adjoining property. Jacqueline Wright was opposed because she felt the access road to Breckenridge would increase an existing traffic problem there. She felt that problem results in part from the Bible Church which is N February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 located close to where the access road would enter Breckenridge. The two churches would have similar high traffic times. She also felt that the appropriate development for the site is only single family which would match its current zoning. Rich Livdahl spoke in opposition because he felt it would have a negative impact on traffic, health and safety. His issues included backup of water which already occurs at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford during storms, and the negative visual impact of such a large building. Gary Barnett spoke in opposition emphasizing the negative affects of noise, congestion, dirt, run-off, etc., he felt would occur during the construction phase, in addition to the impacts of the finished church. Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt he did not have all the information he needed to make a decision. He wanted the Commissioners to have a chance to review the traffic study, and to receive an answer about the issue of approval of the access road to Breckenridge which was such an integral part of the project working. Mr. Lawson responded that all the information won't be developed to the degree he was asking for unless the City says the use is approved. Then the church would still have to be able to meet all the conditions the Commission included in the C.U.P. or it would become void. Commissioner Lowry stated that he was astounded that the Commission was not asked to defer this item based on the amount of missing information. He felt that since the traffic study, which he sees as an important part of the information needed to make a decision, was just received and that the Commissioners hadn't had an opportunity to see it, plus the amount of other missing information was reason to defer. Mr. Lawson responded that much of the information the Commissioners want is what Staff would like to present to them tonight. Commissioner Hawn commented that he preferred to have reports given to him so he could read them himself, rather than trying to have all the information presented during the Commission hearing. He then made a motion to defer the item. 10 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 During discussion about the motion, Commissioner Downing had several questions also about missing information that he felt he needed to be able to decide if this request was appropriate for this location. Mr. Lawson responded that Staff was trying to answer many of those questions, but the Commission wasn't allowing the information available to be presented. Dr. Horn responded, when asked by the Chair; that they were not in favor of a deferral. He felt they had the people present to respond to the questions the Commissioners were asking, plus a deferral to February 17 would push them past a deadline they had in regard to the contract to purchase., A vote was taken on the motion to defer. It failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 nays, 1 absent. Discussion continued. Greg Simmons of Peters & Associates Engineers presented the traffic study. They gathered their data on Sunday during times they felt would be maximum peak times. He explained in general the methodology they used to conduct their study, and the recommendations to improve the flow. The resulting conclusion was that the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would operate at an acceptable level "C" with the suggestions in place during the entering peak period on Sunday morning. That would be a drop from level "B" that it currently operates at during those times. The exiting peak period would operate at level "D". He added that level "D" is an accepted design level for traffic engineers at peak periods. When looking at the other access from Breckenridge, they assumed a 36 foot wide, three lane road, and that only 25% of the traffic would flow to and from that direction. Their conclusion was that intersection would operate at level "B" with only "Stop Sign Control" at both the entering and exiting peak periods on Sunday mornings. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the traffic analysis for the access road to Breckenridge included the Bible Church traffic. The answer was yes. He added that when that church is in session, people park along the street to such a degree that you have only one lane open. More traffic through there would add to an existing problem. 11 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Rahman asked about the impact the church would have on Wednesday night traffic. Mr. Simmons responded that was not studied because it was considered to be less than on Sunday. When asked to estimate the current level of service on Wednesday evenings at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, Mr. Simmons responded he would estimate it to be level "B" or at worst a "C". Commissioner Nunnley commented that he lives near the current Immanuel Church site and that the impact of the church traffic during week nights is negligible. Commissioner Berry mentioned the point that he felt it would be very helpful for the neighborhood to see for comparison what the impact would be if a retail or some other commercial development moved into this site. He felt the state will sell this property and it could be to a commercial developer. Commissioner Lowry asked Dr. Horn what he would expect his growth to be over the next ten years. He replied he would hope it would grow to 2000. Then in reply to the Commissioner's follow on question, Mr. Simmons replied that their study was based on the traffic estimated to be generated from the full 2500 seat capacity, not a smaller number. Commissioner Hawn asked Dr. Horn what efforts he had made to be a good neighbor to Walnut Valley so far. His response was that he had offered the following to the neighborhood: children's summer programs and basketball leagues, making the family life center available to the neighborhood, including having one night a month when the neighborhood association could use the facilities free of charge, making a contribution to the Walnut Valley park, working with the neighbors regarding buffers and the impact of the access road to Breckenridge, self-defense classes for women, and senior adult activities and lunches. Commissioner Berry commented on what he saw as an excessive amount of parking since they have proposed about twice the amount required by City ordinance. He felt that should be cut down and then provide more buffer between the residential area. 12 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Faust pointed out that the ordinance states that the Commission's charge is to review the compatibility of a proposed conditional use with the area, and review the measures being taken to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. She continued that she had problems with the compatibility that this large a church on this plot of land would have in the close proximity with the established neighborhood. She still had many questions before she could decide. Her questions included how the church would look in place, and what would King's Mountain look like after the church was built. She felt elevations and cross- sections could help answer those two questions. She also felt the site was over parked. Commissioner Rahman called upon Mark McGee to state his concerns. He stated that he was concerned that the traffic study data was gathered on December 19, 1999, which was during Christmas break when many people were out of town and schools were not in session. Also he was concerned over the church adding a school later which would increase traffic every weekday that the school was in session. Commissioner Berry called upon Lisa Ring to add her comments. She was concerned that when the traffic data was gathered, Terry School across the street from the proposed site was not in session, and she hadn't heard the school mentioned during the discussion. She felt that some of the school traffic would change the results because they have after school programs that let out at the same times the church would be having evening activities and Wednesday evening services. She felt that this was not the place for this big of a church, that there's too much in that area already. Commissioner Berry made the point that if the church wanted to add a school in the future, they would have to come back before the Commission to modify their C.U.P.. Mr. Lawson added that the application does not ask for a school or any day care, it's just for the church and "family life" functions, and that would be all that would be allowed without coming back before the Commission. Mr. Lawson responded to the question of drainage by calling upon Bob Turner, Acting Public Works Director. Mr. Turner called up the project engineer, Pat McGetrick to review what they would do to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. 13 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 McGetrick stated that in redoing the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford, they would be reworking the drainage to handle the run-off from the church site, and thereby reducing existing problems too. He added that they would meet City requirements for on site water detention and discharge from the site. He added that the worst cuts currently anticipated were 25-30 feet in 10-15% of the site. Commissioner Downing asked more questions of Mr. McGetrick regarding the buffers to the residential areas north and west. Mr. McGetrick replied that the buffer along the north varies from 60 to 100 feet from the proposed paved area. Muriel Lewis, architect for the project, added that along the west side the buffer between the property line and the paved area would be 40-45 feet. In both buffer areas they plan to add additional evergreens before construction begins to help provide a denser visual and sound buffer right from the beginning. Mr. Lewis explained the concept of the building and how it would fit in with the grades. The result would be that there would be at most two floors above grade and the parking areas would follow the grades as much as possible. Commissioner Rahman stated he still needed more information before he could make a decision. He wanted to see a traffic study that included the time frame when school is open, including Wednesday nights, along with the "worse" conditions, and what the traffic would be like with a residential R-2 development on this site. He also wanted to see cross-sections and elevations. Commissioner Berry requested that traffic model impacts be provided for other types of development on the site such as office, commercial, and multifamily. Commissioner Faust made the point that if the neighborhoods want to preserve green space, probably a way to do it is through City parks or through the neighborhood associations themselves buying land in order to preserve it as green space. Commissioner Rector added that information needed for the deferred meeting should include, besides traffic studies and elevations, increased buffer considerations and why the requested amount of parking is needed. 14 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 A motion was made to defer the application to a special meeting to be held on February 3, 2000. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: A revised site plan for the proposed new Immanuel Baptist Church was provided to Staff on January 24, 2;000. The following information summarizes the major. -changes in that plan. The green buffer area'to the north and northwest would be increased to a minimum of 100 feet, with 75 feet of the northern buffer and about 30 feet of the northwestern buffer remaining -undisturbed. The building roof peak height above grade would be about 90 feet on the north side and the building would be approximately 130 feet further to the south than originally proposed. The steeple height above grade on the north side would be about 145 feet, or 55 feet above the roof peak. The two-level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building, and one of those levels would still be below grade. The south parking area would be at grade and be sloped down to about the same level as the Kroger parking lot on the south side. The future additional building that had been shown in the southeast portion of the property, has been removed and replaced with at -grade parking. The proposed total parking has been reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces. (The ordinance minimum requirement is 625 spaces.) The long parking area originally proposed along the entire Shackleford Road frontage has been removed. There would be a few spaces in the general area of the front entrance which still faces Shackleford Road. The footprint of the building would be a little longer running east/west, but smaller running north/south. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 3, 2000) Dr. Rex Horn, Pastor of Immanuel Baptist; Jim Erwin, church representative; Muriel Lewis, project architect; Gregg Simmons, Peters Associates Engineers; and Pat McGetrick, project engineer, were present representing the application. There were 6 registered objectors, 1 registered proponent, and one person registered as "not opposed", who were present. Staff presented the item with a revised project proposal and 15 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed above in the January 6 Planning Commission Action minutes. Condition 4 has been changed to read: "Maintain a minimum 100 foot buffer on both the north and west sides, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed." The revised proposal is: To obtain a conditional use permit for a new 19 acre church site on the northeast corner of Mara Lynn Road and Shackleford Road, consisting of one main church facility with accompanying parking, 100 foot buffers on both the north and west.,sides, and access to Breckenridge Drive and the' intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford Roads. The property is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential." The changes made were to drop the request for expansion space on the east side of the main building, to drop the future unspecified growth area in the southeast part of the property, and to increase the buffers to 100 feet on the north and west sides. The major changes in the proposed project were presented by Staff as follows: increased buffers from 50 to 100 feet on the north and west sides of the property, with 75 feet of the north buffer and 30 feet of the west buffer remaining undisturbed; a two level parking deck would be used only on the north side of the building; the south side parking lot would be at grade and larger than originally proposed; the additional building on the southeast portion of the property was deleted; total parking was reduced from 1352 to 1204 spaces and would be built in two phases, with phase one containing 850 spaces. Phase 1 parking would include all the north side parking area and about one-half of the total south parking area closest to the building. Staff also advised the Commission that since the January 6 meeting, an additional letter- and two phone calls were received in opposition to the proposal. A copy of the letter had been given to each Commissioner. The main concerns expressed in the phone calls were traffic and a negative impact on the adjoining property. Muriel Lewis showed a drawing and reviewed the changes made to the site plan in response to Staff and neighborhood 16 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 concerns. He pointed out the following changes on the drawing: the building was moved to the south and east; a minimum of 100 foot buffers were left on the north and west; he described that the north side parking deck had been moved 126 feet south and how it would be built partially into the ground and not be very visible; he stated the majority of the parking was now proposed on the south side of the building and property; the building height was lowered 5 feet and it had a narrower profile from the east and west views. Mr. Lewis referred to a letter from the State Highway Department that had been given to the Commissioners which stated that the proposed access road to Breckenridge across Interstate 430 right-of- way appeared feasible, but final approval authority would . lie with the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Lewis also explained that the access road to Breckenridge would have evergreen trees planted along it to buffer it from the houses in that area. Mr. Gregg Simmons, from Peters and Associates Engineers, presented the supplemental traffic study results. He stated the additional data results showed that Wednesday evenings would have a level of service `B' at both access points, Breckenridge and Mara Lynn/Shackleford; (this included an assumption that the service would have about 605 of the number of people that come on Sunday morning). They also found that the alternative development scenarios of a 380 unit multi -family, 200,000 square foot office, and 152,000 square foot commercial development, would all operate at level of service `D' at both the a.m. and the p.m. peak volumes five days a week. Pat McGetrick explained the cuts into existing grades that would result from the proposed project. They would be as follows: north side, virtually none; northwest corner would be cut 25 to 28 feet; the ridge in the middle of the property where the church building would be located would be cut 35 foot; they deleted the proposed retaining walls along Shackleford and replaced them with graded 4 to 1 slopes; and there would be 3.5 foot maximum cuts in the area where the road would go out to Breckenridge. Curtis Thomas, retired executive pastor for the Bible Church of Little Rock on Breckenridge, asked that something be placed in writing or as a condition in the C.U.P. that 17 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 if traffic becomes a larger problem due to Immanuel Baptist that it would be worked out. Russell Lemond, President of the Walnut Valley Homeowners Association, stated that the Association had reached an agreement with Immanuel Baptist Church regarding the development of the proposed site. While they would prefer the site not be developed at all, they had reached a compromise that they would not oppose the development if the church agreed to four points as follows: 1) there would be a restricted use covenant between Walnut:Valley Property Owners Association and Immanuel Baptist Church regarding restrictions on the use of the new access road to Breckenridge and protection against encroachment into the agreed to buffer zones; 2) Immanuel Baptist would provide to Walnut Valley Property Owners Association a contractor's construction time line and keep Walnut Valley Association appraised of pre -construction plans; 3) Immanuel Baptist would provide a plan for two way communication during the construction project; 4) the new access road to Breckenridge would be constructed last contingent upon requirements that might be imposed by outside entities such as the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Highway Department, Federal Highway Authority, or the impact of project cost. Mr. Lemond commented about other issues which he felt if the request was approved, needed to be addressed between the church and the City as follows: a detailed hydrology study to address how water control and runoff during and after construction will affect the area where the plans call for the site to be drained to an area that lies within a floodplain; second, how the rebuilding of the intersection at Mara Lynn and Shackleford would impact an already bad `F' rated intersection at Markham and Shackleford, as well as traffic flow on Shackleford north of this intersection; third, ensure there is a serious look at other alternatives to the proposed access road to Breckenridge in conjunction with Highway Department plans to relieve problems where I-630, I-430 and Shackleford intersect. Five people spoke in opposition. Mary Zehr was concerned about the negative impact on Breckenridge traffic flow which she felt was already bad when the Bible Church has services or events, and the worsening of identified traffic problems at Markham and Shackleford. Cynthia Hester was 18 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.• A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 concerned that this development would decrease her property value, increase an existing water run-off drainage problem, and she wanted to be sure the buffers are maintained. Ruth Bell expressed that the League of Women Voters was concerned that this proposal would increase traffic problems, and that the right-of-way for the private access road to Breckenridge should be used for a public access road all along I-430 to pull traffic away from the residential streets. Susan McGee stated one of the more attractive aspects of this City 5 years ago was the green areas and beautiful trees. This was one of the last green areas around. She was very disappointed to find out that talk of preserving green areas and even turning this area into a park was all political rhetoric. Bernice Van Sickel was concerned over increased traffic on North Shackleford where she lives, and she felt that this development would decrease her property value. Jim Lawson, Planning & Development Director, responded to some of the concerns raised. He stated that Immanuel Baptist is planning to hire a police officer to direct traffic on Breckenridge at the access road when the access road would be open. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed access road would make it necessary to prohibit parking along Breckenridge in this area. Mr. Turner also stated that they would be looking closely at the impacts of this project on the floodplain along Breckenridge to make sure it was handled according to City standards. Commissioner Nunnley raised a question regarding his concern about the way the hearing was proceeding, and that he felt that Mr. Lawson was coming across as an advocate for the project. Mr. Lawson responded that he was simply trying to answer the concerns raised and that he was not advocating the project. Commissioner Downing asked about other levels of review necessary where the access road would transit the flood plain area near Breckenridge. Mr. McGetrick responded that they would have to meet City, State and Federal Highway Department, Corp of Engineers and FEMA requirements for construction in the floodplain. Commissioner Downing also had Mr. McGetrick explain what they would do through this project to help the drainage problems in front of the Kroger store. Mr. McGetrick explained that on site water 19 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 detention and drainage management would actually reduce the run-off to the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford from this property, and that when they rework the intersection to integrate the access to the church site, measures would be taken to lesson the existing drainage problems. Commissioner Downing concluded with the point that this project may improve the drainage problem at the intersection, but it would not eliminate it completely, nor would the applicant be required to totally eliminate that problem. Commissioner Ernest asked about any effort to make a land swap between the City and State to preserve this property as open space. Mr. Lawson stated that according to Bryan Day, City Parks Director, the idea had been considered but fell through, and that there were no plans to do that now. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Turner about the impact of this project on the drainage problem at the intersection of Mara Lynn and Shackleford. Mr. Turner verified that the project cannot worsen the current situation and probably would improve the situation. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. Simmons about the impact of this site on traffic at Shackleford and Breckenridge, "and Shackleford and Markham. Mr. Simmons stated that they did not study those particular intersections, but he agreed that church traffic would have some impact at those two locations. He also noted that the church's highest peak on Sunday morning was not the peak at Shackleford and Markham, and that the Wednesday evening inbound church traffic would occur towards the end of the peak at Markham and Shackleford, and that the outbound traffic would be after the peak at that intersection. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, stated that he felt the church traffic would not add to the peak problems at Markham and Shackleford because of the timing of their services. He added that the worst peak level of service `D' at Mara Lynn and Shackleford was an acceptable design level in an urban area. Commissioner Nunnley asked if an environmental impact study was required for this proposal, to which Mr. Turner responded no. To the Commissioner's questions of would the church be renting out their facilities and would they schedule religious concerts there, Dr. Horn responded he does not plan to rent out the facilities and concerts would occur only during special seasons like Christmas, and that 20 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 would occur only on Sunday. The Commissioners also asked about the decision that a level of service `D' would be acceptable when the next intersection, Markham and Shackleford, has been labeled as one of the most accident prone intersections in Little Rock. Mr. Simmons responded that is the industry's acceptable design level of service for an urban intersection. Commissioner Rahman commented on the fact that the ordinance lists a church as an acceptable conditional use in an R-2 zoned area, but that he believed. that the concept of a church at the time that was included in the ordinance was different than what this proposal represents. He believed that the size of this church would have a detrimental effect on the area.: He also asked why there was any concern about it being 'developed as an office or commercial site when it's zoned R-2. Mr. Lawson responded that the State owns the land and could put anything they want on it, including an office building, without getting approval from the City. The State put the walkway over the interstate originally with the thought in mind that there would be another state office building on this site, but they have never put one there. Staff's position is that this site will not be left as open space or be developed for residential use, but it will be developed. The City has no plan to, nor can they afford to, buy the land and develop it as a park. Therefore, staff believes the church would be acceptable and the preferred use. Commissioner Rector commented on statements that this is zoned R-2 and should be developed that way. He said he felt that a full development of this property with residential houses would actually have a larger negative impact on traffic than the church would, based on trips generated and the timing of those trips. Commissioner Faust asked if the landscaping proposed for this site would correspond with the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. Lewis responded that the proposed landscaping would exceed what the currently proposed landscape ordinance would require. Commissioner Ernest disputed the could not be park land. He stated through the political process and legislature to see about securing 21 statement that this site that there are ways through the state this site for park use. February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6784 Commissioner Berry asked that the phased parking be better defined and asked if the area left for phase two would be left undisturbed until its construction. Commissioners Faust and Downing stated they felt the basic question was, would the church be an appropriate use at this proposed site, and would it be compatible without causing an adverse affect on the surrounding property. They both felt traffic was not the overriding 'question. Commissioner Downing asked Russell Lemond if the neighborhood felt residential development would be better than the proposed church or that the church would be the best use for this property., Mr.• Lemond responded that the association would prefer the site remain undeveloped and that they hadn't looked at residential development since that wasn't the proposal. Commissioner Muse asked Dr. Horn if they had considered alternate sites. Dr. Horn stated that they had looked at other sites but were trying to stay as close to downtown Little Rock as possible, maintain ministries in town and be more centrally located to the bulk of church members. They did not want to go way out on Chenal or Highway 10, so they didn't look at sites out there. Commissioner Berry said he felt this was a case of infill development and that the church would be a more benign use and would be appropriate for this site, and that the church has taken measures to mitigate impacts. He felt traffic will be a problem there no matter what. Commissioner Nunnley asked that they take a 5 minute recess before voting to take a breather and have a moment to think about it. The other Commissioners agreed. After the recess Vice Chair Berry commented that either party could appeal the outcome to the Board of Directors within 30 days. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Erwin to clarify a statement he made earlier regarding who bid on this site with the church. He stated that all the bidders bid on the property as though it were zoned R-2, but none of them were residential developers. All of them were speculators 22 February 3, 2000 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6784 attempting to buy the property to do something else with it. None of the bidders intended to try to develop the site with single family residential houses. He added that the State's minimum bid was such that there was no way you could sell it at a -price to justify residential development. Commissioner Muse commented that he would vote for the proposal for two main reasons. One was to help keep this church from moving farther out west. The second was that he felt that this development would have the least amount of impact as far as traffic was concerned. He also wanted the neighborhood's four points of agreement made with the church and stated by Mr. Lemond to be made part of any approved C.U.P. Dr. Horn affirmed that the points read by Mr. Lemond were correct. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, the drawing, the phased parking, and the four points of agreement made between the Property Owners Association and the church as stated by Mr. Lemond. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. 23 P) aF-ihdnn H ct 0) rro (n n H :3•FhH d to H 0 p H tr•rr4 a rr0 ww(n H rr(nro H m o r r• o m o+ R. :fH rr m m m a m G H m o n x" o w N or a m 10W m rr a' �' rr a Pi w p' F� rr :Jn �C p. o m R. P. m w a hh H n a O ro H n m r• w u, m u. H m m a ct ..�rrr•-r•portrrrhh a r• n (n W rr a0wHmmx o H o H r m.r•rom m H P. wax E n o 0 HHar•H 0 r• a rrn hh H ct wm0 0 W r• p a H r mLQ d a (n m F-' m k H z Ul rr N to fi m tr' m F-' N'rrm tr' r•n rr - m W (A W4 m O tow n 0 " a w r 0 0 :j . 0 0 t -I m r• p. m 4 - O 0 F� W rr P. D a m o a p a r• a n n P. a rt m x p. o r• a rr r• a In rh m m 4 rr rt H 0 N a (n P O H m o a (n r• E O 0 0 rt :j (a m H. rr :J rr W hh :4 In m H O G PV a rr (n It m r• 0 rt rr p 0 FL H O r• w w H r• O 14 w a m O P. r- (n (n (n. H P. r• w lo 4 a r• a r• Q (n 0 0 h m w rr :j m hh H D a o :j rt. rr n m 0 0:J rr 0 m P. o hh 0 1 1 hh 0 :j m m W m rh hh H E a h4 7s' rr w D a n :j :j hh w H a rr :3 hh m rr H 0 H ro O p m a 0 rr m a w V P) Pi. m (D m�m�rrHr�u, oro o o H. cr g r ( a ro (n hn o ha N n H ro° N• p. hh o N• a ro o m 0 ohnroromHa 0 0 H m m ro a o m tr' rr w ro m a 0 m (n H F -I m a m m a 0 C7' H (n H m H a n w rt H O a rr H. d 0 H p a 0 H m 0 rr W 0+ :4 a r• n h4 a 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 rr m 0 m w (n ro w z H. a (n cr m (n O m a p H m ro 'd :C rr P. P. P FJ r• m 4 a m 0 ro rr n o H a �' a s r• P. (n O a P H a H m m m m rr o ct m P. ro� P r m G) ,b o FJ m ft p• P. a P. It 14 0 m m r• H P. td p. m 0 P. 0 ro rr N r• n m 0 aH m m H N rr N N :jrt :j w o 0 a 0$ hH m n rr rr H n a rr a m m rt �r (n a n m �• �4 rr m tr It :4 hh hh a O O p. 0 a H H rt :3 rr a a W m o+ 0 H :j PJ :3 ct m m H a P. d w (n 9 4 a a to rr P. hh O r• O z r• O P. O. w m m H 0� hh O a m a O H a r• ro rr p (nW hi m ro n H$ p a H rh �r O O H n PV 0 M p m m 0 rr w w d rr P. rt H p. P. m ro rr tr' W H rt m to 0 0 ct a- O N P. a ti N - O r m (n & O a H �• m w w (n (D - rt ro H (n (n hh m rr (n :C N hh O ro O �' P. N C m 0 a � � w a W n :J ° hh rt 0 r• hh a n r�r a a 4 ct m U. cit :c H :r (D rr m H N m rt w (GD 0 � 0 (HD (n o a4 tr o F✓whha tr tr' m xmro tQ P. a r• H p. 0 :j rt, H wa r• m n m a It (D O rr r• m a Fj a hh P. m o 0 H H 0 i m p p. O rr rr u, a 4 rr 0 rt O H :3 F✓ $ 0 r hh rt_ ct m o m W a a m m (n m rr r• rr rt - (D H n 0 r• W a� 0 _ r H V• m h' 0 tJ' a ro ro H w o O'' r• a a n m m rr m a tr' H m fi rt m$ m H rr rr m hh m `d O H a m m A m o p H rrro (n N p' (n r• m 0 w a n ,:r ::r- a a H O m 0 W a a m O •• •• r• F -A rr 0 r• N rr hh m m rr I-' H o rt ro to ,q ro P- (n a H n:j H r• w n a N 0 rr w 0 W n a 0 n rt G m H rr (n rt N N O m rr m rt o rr 0 H H r :• m n r• m 0 m H m m 0 W rt a r• •. :j (n a K w H m a m m rr m a p (n n a w H (n a ro m H14 w00wa►4 P. rr P. 0 m ro m H m H rr O H rt W (n m FJ tr• m& m 0 tr' a �- o o 0 0 r4 m m W 4 m� n I m m a P. am a m H H 5 0 rrhh r• ph hrr r• P- a P- mrr a0 ro m r• PC o �aaro 0 hh 4 aao P. :jF- aro ro a m a �►d 100 - rr o r• 5 :J m a P H ro &w 0 o n H 0 m r• 0 0 r• r v, Fj (n N r Fj p m rt tr' (n m n a rr m m Hr• cr F -A a 0 hh Fj p •14 a r tr' H. a F� (n 10 r• (n m H (n 0 o rr rr pd to & r• P. hh a m a m >: >: H (n P. rt rr Id m U. K I-h w rr m N N rr a m a s hh p x w r• H m (n 0 :J w% m r• d' m m a rr m n rh m (D - m a m m hh • H w n a w 4 m a H m H ct P. m rr rt rf• rt W m rr H (t O1 w hh (n m O 0 0 r• m 0 H P. m W W m :3 a �' m m 0 rr 0 0 (n W (n (n F -i 4 0 P) H rr p 0 N r H 0 rr m rr a P. - Fj r• rt p. a F -i w r� a r: a CJ' m 0 W rt, a W hh ro a hh FJ H m 0 p. o 0 w Ph hh m Q. bd H d H O H z° C O o H ct w 1-3z n r eLi 2 tzj o ` N Fl � m (o OD ftl tr' H a w N 0 0 0 t" x rt a i m N 0 tr d 5 o H h a 0 It n :c 0 W ro:� 0 a N hh rt 0 m a 0 m rt 4 W o Pa H o x H. 0 0 ro m ch 0' a N H y m w p• m m o m m H a hh a 0 x 0 0 o o H H o o 0 o m 0• x rt ro o m �' s n m mm �.c rtm a k aH G Ha0F°d �waa �ro w m m N•a.(D w LQ w m 0 O G ',r1 0tQ -I "C ctctH o hh 0 P. H N m a m E r r 0 w 0 O 0+ a m W� N 0 o a H 0' (D a m H t a o 0 x H m r• m a r• rt x+ m O m p. F•'• rt rt rt x w ct hh x C a a a rt o a m rta rt o z rt o rt a m H H tr x O a E 0 m tr Fl -. :J a 0 r• m 0 W w H a m F J� m 0 H 0 �C a H rt, 0 • Fl- H m a m m ►4 H 0 rt m FJ E to r• m O H F-' m 0 p a p N m r H m m m m a H 0 rt W 0 0 rt w m r• x 0 a O H O 0 r• H 0 O rt a rt 0 aro 0 ro rt w d 0 W m 0:3� r• a ro x m 0 rt a o G 0 0 0 m p. 0. rt m rt hh H H m hh rt m 0 h� rt m H m H m m :j C m m rt H 10�C :jtr H 4 m 0 w a a 10m w O rt 0 P. 0 r• O- m o a rt- (D ro 0 tr' a 0 o aH rt, y m o a 0 m H m a rt H rtm 0 r H x a 0 c H oro rt- :r 0 a H m 0 0' H to Id rt. -. O rt (D �' n �' 0 0 F-' H m ro rt m 0 N to a r• m 7C R. rt H m a N H r• ro W m tr' m 7, m O N a rt ro 0 to rt m F✓ N N hh m g r• r• a rt w W rt H W m O:J rt F -J A m ro a O 0 Q to rtk n P. O'A H H m w m O hh W a p H O w r• d 0 H m :j a H a 0 .-. n ct m x m m ro ta W m p• r• o o 0 a:J • n 0 m m r• 0 O 0 H m hh rt m m p. H 0 w 0 a 0 ro 0 :4 tr P. rt m m c- 0 a 0 E m ct r• 0 0 r• P. a 0 m 'H o F, x H rt r• a N o m am - a Pa rt W p• r• 0 P. • m Hw a rt 0 mw 0 m 0 p• 0 rt P) o hh N W rt x a rt m m r• trtr(D r H- r•r•ro rt HP, n rt- 0 r o m 0 0• K aro w r• x p• 0 m m �C r• rt 7c' 0 N H w 0 r 0 r• m tQ 0' m m a o ro H- o ct ro D o r• m r m a' a m o o a a m m m 0 m to (D m m t rt a h� P' o m rt a a� a rt m o E 0 rt ro o d rt m w a rt 0 a m m rt m `H m m w m a. w o w w rt x o a m O a° m N m a• H � I� E rt 'd ►c Fa' 14 m � ct rrt• m o H M rr ma m rt x 0 It (DD {f{pt 10 r' 0 a m H N fFJ u : hh o m ct 0 � m to w a Q. 0 rt O W n H R• ( m(D O a& m U m 0 a 0 crt• rt m r 0 a ft w H m H 0 x r• xr•rr m o r•m rt H n rtH �' a r• P. Hhhw0 a m a rt mp• C: 0 0 m rtH a rt a w 0 P. p C m H 0 0 n �� a rt m rt :j m P. a W C x r O 0 p h• m ch 0 - tr' �' m r• a w H 0 m m m hh rt P. m 0 a m Fl. la. ct to rto O r•9: m H r•m tJ'N rtwrdm i✓ H him rtrtN a0 r•rt 0 0 0 m O m hrt. to P. H P. a G 0 H ct a s m m H x 0• H a rt 0 r• �' O ; F✓ 4C rt F-' n o 0 w 0 0 o a rt m O ro rt k • 0 o m H a O ty r• a hh pv F✓ aro �' H a m a m o a rt m d w ro N PC m x H :4 ►C 0 a a 0 x m W a 0 w w m rt m m H n �' m It O N 0 a 0 a a O O a x 0 H a a 0' m a hh H 0 0 x, m w 0 a r• a s tr th It o H ro a 0 m 0 m 0 0 a ro ct m rt m m ro H 0 a 0 r• H r• rt 0 tQ 0 & C H m rt o m H k W m o rt k o 0 0:4 w a ro a s rt Oro r• m w tq 0' rt x r �C 14 (D (D P. o m It m- o ro 0 a 0 0 tr' 0 P. m a rt s 0 .1a 0 H W P. O H ro H a 0 It x m a w x 4 m U ct m 0 H a m r• P) 0 rt ro a m p H 0 tr m rr H F✓ P. r• m p• 0 rt W P. a m 0 tQ oro r ro P. O C H m P m w P. 0 rt 0 a (D a n r• hh 0 0 m.ro m to 0 ro ct m a H 0 H 0 w ct r• m x a H m m a rt ro w 0 H 0 p• ro rt - G rh H "' ct a N w a H N 0 0 H a P3 p- `n ro H a rt, k IH 0 a m to x w ro O ro m ct (D PJ d c 0 P. (D � mtq r• CrhartH w r•0 H 0 hh H rta w& a ft fu m P. ft rt aH 0 o 0 0 P. r• g tr a C H rh 0 0 0 r• w 0 rt a x a ct r• r• 4 0 ro m 0 W a to 9 m 0 hh to " H H ti 0 a 0 O 0 H 0 0 to a m 0 O ro m H a 0 0 x rt H 0 m m o P. tr a m H m W a rt o rt O 0 F-' 0 rt H Q 0 a P. m x o ff rt w m a O m 0 0 0 rt H r• - 10W m P. H �C tij d rt a r m 0 m m mm to d H m m rt o 0:4 m It • W a o tr H a 0 ct N z N• N a a O O m a x (aro p. p. 0• - m m W H H m 0• m� Y• C 5oc' ti (D to W° x O H ft ro rt, rt 0 cmt P. P. trNNO 0 H a rt a P. rt0'rt0' m xh4m 0 as Na H rtr•m 0 m w m hh t4 F-' N 0 0 0 h' rt rt W m o r• 0 P. o O m 0 p. rt m rt* P. H m It a a m x m H 0•m 1111t7d m 0 fl WP- m H m 0 hhhh H- Nm. r• hh0 0 & o 1 m rt r• rt rt a r• m a o 0 a 0 H d 0 hh m a s 0 0 0 H 0 m m a rt p. 0 w W x 0 b 0 m a rt w m P. o ct • rt rt tC w hh H m H. C. N 0 0 a m 0 o rt p H F-' rt P. 4 W a �r 0 rt a rt- to rr a rt P.0 m rt FJ- Nrtr• C 0 P. t rt - m xrtm rt r•�' a s :3, U) m rto 0)0 H a m m rt o x P. m m w rt a 0 m r• j • o rt 0 m p• N m rt p• 0 co a 0 FJ 00 ro rA >: hi r• rt w a 0 to a r• a 0 a (n rt rt h] a H td 0 a 0 ct a W H 0 t1' rt 0 rt a s ,� � rt r H hi H (D W t r• p 0 H rt Fh �' F� a Fh rt �' �' m to m H O 0 ro 0 0 W H m 0�r (D W m d tr Fh H &O H W 4 rt m rt rt O a H Fh H 0 m m a m 0 0 ro 0 H m to 0 (D m 4 H (o w a b' 4 o G m m H 0 o rt 0 (D m H H m a (D ct p n N r H N:; (D n ct (D a ro fD m O N rt rt ::r rt, H H F�r•r(D Wrtx7Ca H 0 HFC 0 H to H :rr•Wrtp.a rt, (D XH H 0 H (n H(D 0 m H IC r:r m m H m a m w N x 0 to H x • H P. rn 0 Fh (D Pa H r• H H H 0 w 0 a r• F -J r• a z P) m (n rt m m r• :J m (n m FC m p. o 0 rt 0:Jaro (n 0� :J n m a rt ro m N,, Fr rt Fh 0 Fc N (n x x 0 0 m H H Fh 0 ro H 0 0 H o 0 H 0 H m o 0 rt H rt� to H r• m 0 0 rt , Fh m (D Id rt. 14 w r•o trftH p 0 m p xr•m r•rt- 0 art* rt, 0 r•IJ- (n rt0 (n m rtr•N $ r a 0 11 m p, a p H a r• a rt (n a 0' (n a P. rt 0 P. w 4 H. P. 0 (n H -e m 0 0 0 (n 0 0 •• w rt H It :J m w F -J rt P. p. o w 0' rt a rt W FC rt W o r• 0 0 C tY tQ 0 0 r• o rt 4 0 a o (D m ro m rt (D :3 C1 (D H P. a 0 :3' (n m p. Fh 0 a a m to 0 0 a rt rt P. - 0 H V y H 0 z: 0 :40 (D F� Fh r• rt w W 0 rt 0 P• (D N 4 ~ rt. w b H 0 P. tii til a hi a (n 0 m a a a Fh rt ro ro rt F� Fh a 0 a (D H a tr Fh 0' CO p• 0 O H (D rt 0 t7 :3 0 m. N N rt N w rt to m 0 FC .17' O H a H w (D m p h rt P. m rt (D rt - t7 0 .. 0 X p :4 r• w H a 0 m rt r• rn rt m t f a 0 0 m 0 k H a r• m rt H a m� 0 0 Wrta 4 m O rtrt4 H �0 m o a p �+r•rrFJu.ro ( m rt0 a arta rtro (D 0 (n (n m 9 O r• w m a a 0 :J x m ro rt 1 rt a m F-' n tdN Id x� (n x m m m H to W ti :j e 0 H rt H Ci rt 0 ro m rt rr 0 o a 0 p H 0 H m m ct m 4 a p• m 0 rt a u• m p H m a a 0 >: z: 0 H a tr Fl r• tJ' rt p :J r• 0 p 0 a 0 FC m ro O to H a a s FJ a• 0 (n P. - r• P. 0 0 m w(D (n :J I'd m rt 0 0 0 H H 0 rt H. PV :j H top a :y 0 �' r tr H$ rt 4 tr Fh ct m m (n m (n p. 0 Fh :C 0 0 m o' p• (D FJ P. a m P) m 0 rt rr (n Fl. (D H P) 14 (D tr P. w rt o a 0 H H 0 m 4 0 0 ro ro Fr PJ (D R• a a o to H rt 0:r :j C1 0 rt a 0 rt O 0 `' H 0 a ct rt H m 0 0 m 0 rt, 0 H En ct p. rt o m w r• rt rt a E p. a m a G F4 0 b, :j 0 0 FC tJ P. 0 0 H H a w w rt 0 W w W FC to 0 rt H H m H (-h H m rr 7C m to rt rt rt P. 0 th 0 a P. ma rt d m P) m o w H tj w p. a H a rt a Fh p rt W S H. 0 .. :j a e Ida p. ro� 0 rt H 0 b' p rt I m- Fh 0 0 0' r• m 0 Fh m 0 0 r• H m 0 O W� H rt p. rt 0 0 rt rt m Fh P' :4 a w rn:CFh m m 0 n 0 o m H 0 0 x P. o W P. ro H 0 p. td 0 w F, ro m a rt p m d 0 a W m m P. n (Drt � F- p::r• i Idm m n 0 4 t7' p rt a r• (n b rr H m H H o 0 rt H 0 0 rt w H p. rF H m m rt PV 0 rt m a ro ro H a" w F -A m rt r rt rt to �' 0 th to :c (D W 0 to P. x ct K 0 P. H I' a (o (D >: FC F -I N 0 w ty rt (0 0 H m to m v 0 m W 0 a s m O a U rt w o V4 m o m p. a :4 0 p m td :C 0 F -i H p m H NNoPHo m J a n b GNapw 0 (D to ' H. ..oN r• a P o W H i F' rt' N w o rt H. l0h W m 4 0 F- H a a a to p to t7' a 0 :J (n art O to w H a FA w rt H FC w� p. rt rt m P, :J H 0 a tr G ro FC (n m 0 0 bd m 0 w Fh (D m r• 0 rt p p• 0 .` t ' W 0 E W 0 th r• m a m m a x rt to 0 w rt o a r 0 to ::140 FC H w P. 0 G m a N c+ a s o -- r FC o a Pi m 0 o P. to 0 P. o to ro n m rt a N rt m O rt m p th w m a FC 0 H H W H H m a rt w it 0 w C a rt" to H H w w H 0 rt W m :2r' :j 0 m rn H P. m:4 0 rt P. 4 x rt 0 H o H a rt W O to 0 p 0 m a rt m C rt W r• P. H a t0 m w w o a w p a P. w 0 4 to 0 o p H r• to a x 0 4 a x w :T, Di 0 p. 7 r• rt m N W a�� Fh m O r• H r• m a r• rt a rt 0 F� 0 rt 0 H 0 rt V) a m a a H h] a m FN H >~ m ro to to 0 0 rt H Fh H m 0 FC a r• a r• a m 0 O H •• •- m H FC H H ; p. t-' H H o m a a w a X O rt �' m M m to a' ro (D :3 0� FC :4v a 0 C 4 m a m ti x rt m(n a H H a F-' a a N H U w rt p 0 a 0 m P. x a FA m a i r• H 1.4 txj m w n Fh 00 m a a m rt rt P. m x O m m m 0 m ',d o� H `•' H 0 0 0 m a N It R' W 0 7s' �3 a ca Fh :jO' G '.1' P. m u ro .'7 0 p. H to 0 H rt rt H H 0 w 0 W a x 0 z rt w0 n 0 F -I m a m 0 P. w P m H F4 m a ct rt 0to o a 0 m m rt ro m H n 0 0 0 m m H :j m:3 H H P. P. p. tr Fh 0 H P. H W 0 0 P. W t4 p a a rt- x 0 m H a0 It 0 Fh rt rt P. a ro m ro p H m m rt rt G P. a 0 ct 10 :3 a m m W m m H p'' FJ m O 0 0 a W rt to H O H � P. ro 0 ro r• H H rt H ro H c a ro m p. 0 $ rt O H H ro 0 0 0 a P E rt 0 m m 0 Q rt a s o 0 a H m rt H E td a H w 4 0 a P (n 0 rt 1: 0 a 0 m 0 0 (n 0 w rt 0 4 r• 0 m a ty a N W a s m a H r• w pww m W N rt rt 0 P. rt r• rt :j 104 P. th 0 m 10I Fh (n p. 0 F -a rt a rt a FC p th rt - to 0' rt O 0 a w W m 0 Fh m H rt m Fh N O w :j w 0 m :J H m m H 0 H N P. -7 ot P. �• o FC ~ EA a p• • N w ch Ea b' rt rt MW N t4 oro [] (1. 0t'• a H rt- (D ro��m�Ho mortrrrrt1-3 a s ct m •roa wro N 0 O C a a rt• rt ft :4 Y•o H H W a rt Hro 0 m N rt x mmmI'd 0rt t-+ooa oow yam z E4 p. m x o w c rt rt x N N oro z - a N O m O a N ro N .N H. p rt o tr' U1 0 a a H a a Fh r F'• m m H. w m a :j :J t3' u, rt H o m H p'p.maf7aO Ft,ct� o ((D rt* (D " . P) m ro N (A 4 0 IA p• a :'H H • N rt - 14 ►c ma rt m rt -H N.0 rt, xo Ea HHWO H roa m to ort t-I0w"a (D - rt : 9 m 0•"'m o tyP.o CO 0- P' m rt��tr14 o P. O H W 0 O H 0 rt c W a P. p rt- ort H - tJ• H H m a o a a rt rt NaK o H K a �FnN•o ro H a�' Na m x ro P' rs E m m m C7' H 0 R• � ' ) 0 0 � 0. N � ; H m fr] vai 1 uHi H v, a• O rt 'zs d o m �' (D m W (D m m m rt 0 H rt 0 m a rt H p' O a r N rt H N m ctn m 0 W m h o Ea. �rt*'i ° '►°y a U. ►7 a ,m� fHt O. N 0 H �' ��t. O 0 ct N �' N rt H m �C 0 o H m m m a w p P• 4 0 rat rr a x a rt O O p.rtH 0 (D' :J F'•ct0 O ro w ro 0 a O m m :' N m �' Fh G rt N rato•rob'�E m m ° o u, N• :J m N a m m m m •a H m N rt m O rt o N• rt ! a H to O m H N a�u,ao artx • rtr- Ea (D o P) a rta xm rtH P. x 0 tr'a o ct rt* xm o a a:4 m rt' (D K C Fh 0 N. m m a m r ry' c : N Ca°; m a ' a� Id Id m a m 0 m 0 rt a s P. H ct W to o a N a oN rt P. d P. m o N c �• H- a P. H$ w N 0. ro m PO a .4 w tI] o m m En p rt w o rt a m o� N urt,ox4g4mo acro~ o V m m Fn a Pa m H k �' ro cn 0 0 0 H rt 0 o w ro a m FhH rt p m a �•rt0 rt cC rtrt o �t'w a�mm�rtrtx o ;:4 xa ak artx�'m rtm rt N N (aD p. 91 k F°n rt N m Y. °; m m � Ph