Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6886 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-6886 NAME: The Church at Rock Creek - Long -Form POD - Conceptual Plan LOCATION: Northwest corner of Interstate 430 and West 36th Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: The Church at Rock Creek McGetrick and McGetrick 4217 S. Shackleford Rd., 319 East Markham St., Suite 202 Suite 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72204 40 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: Construction of new collector street ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: Single Family Residential PROPOSED USE: VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Church Facility and Ancillary Uses None requested. The applicant proposes to rezone the 40 -acre site at the northwest corner of Interstate 430 and West 36th Street from R-2 to POD. The applicant is proposing a conceptual site plan for a church facility and related ancillary uses. The development plan includes construction of a collector street from West 36th Street, at the southwest corner of the church property, to Bowman Road. Access to the church development will be gained by utilizing a private boulevard street, which will run from near the southeast corner of the church property to the proposed collector street near the center of the site at the west property line. FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) Please see the attached conceptual site plan for the applicant's approximate proposed placement of the various buildings, parking areas, softball fields and street design. Attached is the church's description of development, which includes a list of the buildings proposed (with maximum building area) and other site features within the proposed church campus. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded, with varying degrees of slope. Interstate 430 is located along the property's east boundary. There are single family residences to the south and southeast along West 36th Street. There is also an animal clinic on the south side of West 36th Street. There are also single family residences immediately north of this property. The property immediately west of this site is also undeveloped and wooded. The property further west, along the west side of Bowman Road, is zoned R-2 and contains a scattering of single family residences on large lots. There is also a nonconforming plant nursery business along the west side of Bowman Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has met with three (3) of the adjacent property owners to the north who have expressed concerns with the proposed development. The Sandpiper, John Barrow and Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Collector Street connecting Bowman to 36th must be shown on plan and constructed. 36th Street is a minor arterial. Improve to standards and as a minimum improve under I-430 to allow right turn and center left turn into proposed driveway. 2. Right-of-way dedication required per the "MSP". Right- of-way required is 45 feet from centerline. (36th Street arterial right-of-way cuts southwest corner) 3. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage. 4. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities. 5. Proposed design of street conforming to "MSP" is required. 6. Street cross-sections of proposed streets at 100 feet stations are required. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) 7. Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines are required. 8. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Stormwater Detention per Ordinance 14,787 and the "Drainage Manual" is required. 11. Direction of flow for watercourses leaving the property is required. 12. Drainage area size and runoff coefficient for • watercourses entering the tract is required. 13. Proposed ditch sections is required, with easements. 14. Description of existing surface features including soil type and vegetation is required. 15. Prepare letter for streetlights as required by Sec. 31-403. 16. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five-foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186 (e) will be required with a building permit. 19. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 29-186 (b) will be required. 20. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283 is required. 21. Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work. 22. Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed facility. Address how the proposed facility affects turn movements at the intersection of Bowman and 36th Street. 23. Skewed intersections cause safety and maneuvering problems. All streets must be designed to intersect at 90 -degree angles. 24. The circulating road around the facility must be built to collector street standards. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. AP&L : No Comment. ARKLA: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. A development fee applies, based on the size of connections and an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies, in 3 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont. addition to normal charges for water service. These fees will apply for the fire service connection and for any meters whether they are off the public water main or the fire service line. Other special conditions apply if the meter(s) are off the private fire service line. Backflow prevention will be required on the domestic service for the medical clinic and possibly other connections. Contact Carroll Keatts (phone 377-1241) at the Water Works regarding backflow prevention requirements. Fire Department: Private fire hydrants will be required. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. Countv Plannin : No Comment received. CATA: Site is not on a dedicated bus route; however, the proposed development should be designed to allow bus/transit access. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The applicant's property is shown as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. The request is for a zone change from R-2 Single Family to Planned Office Development. The applicant wishes to develop the property for facilities to serve the needs for a variety of church ministries that include recreation, counseling, automobile repair shop, auditorium, atrium, and class rooms. The proposal will require a Land Use Plan Amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. Landscape: Areas set aside for land use buffering along the western perimeter and portions of the southern perimeter do not meet the minimum width requirement of 27 feet. The full width requirement without transfers is 40 feet. The proposed street buffer width along I-430 meets ordinance requirements when averaged out, however, in one 4 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) area it drops to a width of 10 feet. The full width requirement without transfers being 56 feet. Since this is a heavily wooded site, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. This site will be required to be screened from the residential properties to the north, south and west. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing vegetation that provides the year-round screening necessary. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 13, 2000) Pat McGetrick and John McMorran were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed conceptual plan. In response to questions from staff, Mr. McMorran noted that the north buffer area would be undisturbed and that the softball fields would be lighted. The location of the softball field was briefly discussed. The Public Works requirements were discussed at length, including the collector street location. Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, noted that a traffic impact study was needed. This issue was briefly discussed. The required land use buffers were also discussed. It was noted that additional buffer width was needed along the western and portion of the southern perimeters. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the POD to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised conceptual plan drawing to staff on July 20, 2000. The revised plan addresses some of the concerns as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The collector street between West 36t' Street and Bowman Road has been shown on the plan. The softball fields have been moved further north away from the single 5 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont. family residences along West 36th Street and the total parking figure has been reduced from 2,000 to 1,750. A church facility with a seating capacity of 7,000 would typically require a minimum of 1,750 parking spaces. Although staff has no initial objection to the proposed church development at this location, there are several issues relating to site design features which need to be worked out and resolved prior to the public hearing. There are also several Public Works issues (traffic impact information, stormwater detention facilities, etc.) which need to be resolved. As noted in paragraph C., staff has met with several concerned neighbors who own property immediately north of this proposed development. Staff has suggested that the church meet with these neighbors to attempt to resolve some of their concerns. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Although staff has no initial objection to the proposed church development of this property, there are several site design and Public Works issues that need to be resolved prior to Planning Commission consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 3, 2000) Mark Evans, John McMorran, Pat McGetrick and Kevin Hutchinson were present, representing the application. There were several persons present with concerns. Staff briefly described the proposed conceptual site plan and noted that the church had submitted a revised site plan and a phasing plan. Staff offered a recommendation of -approval with the.following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda report. 2. Any site lighting should be low-level and directed away from adjacent property. 3. The 100 foot buffer along the north property line must be undisturbed, with construction fencing in place prior to any site work. John McMorran addressed the Commission in support of the application. He reviewed the overall site plan and the proposed phases of the development. Mark Evans, senior pastor of the Church at Rock Creek, addressed 0 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) the Commission in support of the application. He discussed the proposed ancillary (ministry) uses and explained each of these specific uses. He noted that the proposed Church of the Rock Creek ministries are modeled after a church in Florida, where he was recently employed. James Woods addressed the Commission with concerns. He noted that the neighborhood is not opposed to a church being located on the site. He stated that the neighborhood wished to have additional time to consider the revised site plan and phasing plan. He noted concern with liability issues associated with some of the ancillary (ministry) uses. Lisa Byrum also addressed the Commission with concerns. She noted that she was not opposed to a church being located on the property, but would like additional time to discuss and work out the issues that the neighborhood has with the proposed development. Reggie Clow also addressed the Commission with concerns. He noted that he does not oppose the church use, but has concerns with some of the ministry uses. He stated that he felt the church would have no control over the persons who will be temporarily housed on the property. He asked the Commission to defer the application. A deferral of the application was briefly discussed. Pastor Evans stated that if the Commission wished to defer the application, the church would request a deferral for two (2) weeks. Commissioner Lowry asked about the current church attendance. Pastor Evans noted that the church currently has an average attendance of 1,200 _persons. Commissioner Lowry asked Pastor Evans when the church anticipates having a 7,000 membership. Pastor Evans stated that at the present growth rate, it would be 15 to 18 years. Commissioner Lowry asked if any thought had been given to the traffic issues. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that the church would front on a minor arterial (West 36th Street) and that Bowman Road is also classified as a minor arterial. He noted that these streets would eventually be constructed to minor arterial standards and be able to handle the future traffic for the 7 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) church, with 7,000 projected members. Mr. Turner noted that he is comfortable with the street phasing plan and how the streets will handle the future traffic. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that he anticipates the land around the church property to develop by the time the church reaches the 7,000 member mark, with a street system that will handle the future traffic. Mr. Clow also commented on issues related to traffic, parking and building size. Vicky Foti addressed the Commission with traffic and noise concerns related to the proposed development. She also noted concern with property values in the area and with the church ministry uses. Mr. Lawson commented that the Church had obtained enough property (at the suggestion of staff) to support a long-term plan and accommodate the church's long-term goals. Vice -Chair Berry commented that the applicant had made changes in the site plan as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. He commented on how a single family development could include as much traffic and building area as the proposed church development, with less buffer area. Commissioner Rector noted that the intersection of Bowman Road and a 36th Street will be a major intersection in the future and briefly discussed. He also noted that the church made an effort to revise the site plan based on the Subdivision Committee review. He encouraged the neighborhood to work with the church in resolving their issues. Mr. Turner estimated a traffic count of 50,000 vehicles per day at the intersection of Bowman Road and West 36th Street, at build -out. Commissioner Muse asked how far this site was from the Immanuel Baptist Church site and how large that church site is. Mr. Turner noted that this site is approximately 3.5 miles from the Immanuel Baptist site and that the Immanuel Baptist property is approximately 20 acres in size. Mr. Turner noted that a single family development on this property would create a large amount of traffic. The traffic issues were briefly discussed. 8 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont. A motion was made to defer the application to the August 17, 2000 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 17, 2000) Mark Evans, John McMorran and Kevin Hutchinson were present, representing the application. There were several persons present with concerns. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the item and noted that a meeting had taken place between the church and the neighborhood on August 11, 2000. John McMorran addressed the Commission in support of the application. He noted that the proposed phasing of the project was discussed at the meeting with the neighborhood. Mr. McMorran noted that the church would conform to the future landscape requirements with regards to the parking and buffer areas. He noted that the north undisturbed buffer had been increased to 100 feet and that a construction fence would be in place prior to any site work. He noted that the construction fence would accommodate the drip lines of the trees on the 100 - foot line. Mr. McMorran also noted that the church would install a fence along the north property line, but the neighbors did not want the fence. He also noted that the area which was cleared due to the soil testing would be replanted. Commissioner Lowry asked Mr. McMorran if the application would be amended to include the conditions in the church letters to the neighborhood dated August 14 and August 16, 2000. Mr. McMorran responded that the application would be amended to include these conditions. Commissioner Lowry asked if the church would comply with the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. McMorran stated that the site would comply with the new ordinance. Commissioner Lowry asked if the application would be amended to accept this condition. Mr. McMorran responded that the application would be amended. Mark Evans, Senior Pastor, also addressed the Commission in support of the application. Pastor Evans briefly discussed the meeting which the church had with the neighborhood. Reggie Clow addressed the Commission, representing the Sandpiper Creek neighborhood. Mr. Clow noted concern with the proposed ancillary church uses. He read a prepared statement (see E FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) attached) and discussed. He asked to what extent the area cleared for soil samples would be replanted. He also noted that the neighborhood wished to retain an option for the permanent fence along the north property line, in case trespassing becomes a problem in the future. Mr. Lawson asked who would determine if there is a future problem. Mr. McMorran noted that the church would replant the number of trees which were removed for the soil samples. He stated that these trees would be three (3) inches in caliper or greater. There was a brief discussion concerning a permanent fence along the north property line. Mr. Lawson suggested that if the fence was requested by the neighborhood in the future, that the issue should come back to the Planning Commission. The issue of retaining an option for the fence was discussed. Commissioner Lowry asked if the church and neighborhood could meet outside the board room and resolve the outstanding issues. Kevin Hutchinson stated that the church would like to address the issues one -by -one before the Commission. Pastor Evans and Mr. McMorran addressed the Commission and noted the following: 1. The buildings on the site will be sound -proofed. 2. The buildings' fagade will not be constructed of metal, concrete blocks, etc. 3. There will be no steeple. 4. The building elevations will not be determined until after the finished grades are in place. 5. Maximum building heights will range from 65 to 80 feet, depending on the finished grades. 6. The following information was offered regarding the Children's Care Center: a. The church would like a maximum of 12 children in the center. b. The church could not guarantee that the children would not be referred from the judicial system, but the center would not be a half -way house. C. Children under the care of the church will not be allowed to drive. d. The church is not sure how long a temporary stay will be. 7. The following information was offered regarding the car ministry: a. The maximum building area will be 2,500 square feet. b. This facility will not grow any larger. 10 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) C. Only minor car repairs will be done (oil change, wash, wax, etc.). No salvaged cars will be accepted. d. This building will also be for storage of equipment for the entire campus. e. The facility will accommodate two (2) cars at a time (inside the building). f. After repair and cleaning, the cars will be parked on the parking lot. g. There will be no salvaged auto parts stored on the property. h. There will be no test-driving of the vehicles in the surrounding neighborhoods. 8. The following information was offered regarding the Medical Care Center: a. The church is not willing to limit the days of operation. b. The church does not know what the hours of operation will be at this time. 9. There will be no clear cutting of the site at this time. The church will remove the trees along the I-430 Frontage for visibility at the time of Phase I development. 10. There will be no A/C cooling tower on the site. Smaller package units will be used. 11. The church cannot agree to having no construction take place on weekends. Commissioner Lowry asked what type of cases would be accepted by the medical clinic. Pastor Evans noted that this would be a walk-in clinic for minor medical illnesses. Commissioner Rector noted that the hours for the medical clinic needed to be determined. Pastor Evans stated that the clinic would be open three (3) days per week with hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This issue was briefly discussed. Mr. Clow noted that the neighborhood supported the church, but has had concerns about specific details of the development plan. Lisa Byrum addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated that she was concerned that the trees between Phase 1 and I-430 will be clear-cut with the Phase I development. She noted concern with the noise from I-430 if this area is clear-cut. This issue was discussed. Commissioner Lowry noted that the church has agreed to conform to the new landscape ordinance. Chair Adcock stated that the neighborhood is getting more protection (with the 100 foot undisturbed buffer) than would be required with the new 11 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) ordinance. This issue and the issue of building permit approval were discussed. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, noted that other areas of the site could be cleared with the first phase of development as long as the clearing conforms to ordinance standards. Mr. Clow noted that the neighborhood asked for a definition of "temporary stay" for the proposed centers. Commissioner Rector stated that a limit for temporary stay should be determined. Pastor Evans stated that "temporary stay" would be defined as 12 months or less. The issue was briefly discussed. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission. She stated that she was originally concerned with the car ministry use, but the church had addressed most of her concerns. She stated that she did not want to see a used car lot created. This issue was briefly discussed. Pastor Evans noted that the car ministry/maintenance building would accommodate two (2) cars at a time (inside). Commissioner Rector stated that a maximum number of car ministry vehicles which would be parked on the site should be determined. Pastor Evans stated that the maximum number of car ministry vehicles which would be parked on the site at any one time would be twelve (12) vehicles. Commissioner Earnest stated that the church members would not want to have a used car lot created. Vice -Chair Berry expressed concern with the level of regulatory detail that the Planning Commission was applying to the church application. He briefly discussed this issue. Commissioner Faust expressed concern that the discussion of this application would become a precedence for other church developments. This issue was briefly -discussed. Commissioner Lowry asked about traffic issues. Bob Turner discussed the traffic study done by Peters and Associates. He discussed the peak volume of traffic which would occur on Sundays and Wednesdays. Mr. Turner noted that the proposed street improvements for phase one development should be adequate as determined by the traffic study. He noted that additional improvements will have to be made to the road system prior to the time of full church buildout. He noted that the church is only a part of the overall future development of this area. 12 FILE NO.: Z-6886 (Cont.) Commissioner Lowry asked if Public Works had a problem with the proposed development from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Turner noted that Public Works had no problem with the proposed church development. Vice -Chair Berry noted that there would not be much difference in the amount of traffic that the church will generate and the amount that would be generated by a single-family development. Commissioner Rector discussed the amount of detail that was discussed with this application. He noted that this proposed church development is a different, unique type of use, and that the amount of detail that was discussed should be expected. He asked if there were any unresolved issues. There was no response from the audience. There was a motion to approve the POD as recommended by staff, to include the amendments to the application and additional project information as offered by the applicant at this meeting. Mr. Lawson noted that the motion did not include the requirement for fence construction along the north property line. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 13