Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6929 Staff AnalysisJanuary 25, 2001 ITEM NO.: B NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Z-6929 Divinity Gardens Cemetery - Conditional Use Permit 3200 Roosevelt Road McDonald's Corporation / Gunn Hampton Inc., Matthew Hampton PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit to construct a new cemetery with a small pavilion for services, a large cross, fountains, and accompanying parking on property zoned C-3, General Commercial, located at 3200 W. Roosevelt Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This 2.69 acre site is located on the north side of Roosevelt Road on the northeast corner of the intersection with Brown Street. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed site is zoned C-3, General Commercial. Properties to the west and most of the east side are also zoned C-3 and contain commercial businesses. Across Roosevelt to the south the zoning is PCD, Planned Commercial Development, which contains the County Jail and Court buildings. To the north across 27th Street, and northwest and northeast the zoning is R-2, Single Family Residential. Those properties contain single family residences. Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible with the neighborhood. The Love Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed plan has a one way in driveway off of Roosevelt Road and a one way out divided driveway onto Brown Street. There is no specific parking standard for a cemetery. However, since the intent is to focus services at the pavilion with accompanying parking there, Staff believes the standard of one parking space for every three seats in the pavilion, (as applies to a funeral home with chapel services), would be reasonable. Since the Pavilion would seat 70, that would result in a requirement for 23 spaces. There is space for approximately 30 cars on the plan. Stacked parking could be allowed in the driveways, but a minimum width of 9 feet would be required for each column, and open driveways would have to be maintained at all times. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Maintain the required 8% of the total parking area as interior landscape islands. An irrigation system is required for the landscaped areas. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. b. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. c. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. d. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. e. Brown and W. 27th are classified on the Master Street Plan as commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. f. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. K January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: Any relocation of water facilities will be at the expense of the developer. Contact Water Works for meter size and location. Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: No comments received. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted, but place fire hydrant per code. CATA: Site is served by CATA route #14, Rosedale. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a cemetery with a small pavilion for services, a large cross, fountains, and accompanying parking, to be placed on this 2.69 acres of vacant land. Siting requirements for the proposed structures are met in the proposal. This proposal would take land that has been vacant for a long time and turn it into a quiet, garden type cemetery use. The majority of activity and traffic for services has been confined to the southwest corner of the site, well away from any residential areas. Only walking traffic would be allowed in most of the site. The applicant has asked for a waiver for street improvements. They would install required sidewalks. Public Works does not support a waiver of the street improvements. They would support a deferral of improvements to 27th Street only. They believe Brown and Johnson Street improvements should be made with the original development. There are also problems with the layout or location of both access driveways and the layout of the parking area. The parking lanes must be 9 feet wide with a 10-12 foot 3 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 driveway in between them which would be kept unobstructed even during services. Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this site and would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, but the design of the driveways and parking area must meet ordinance requirements. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the parking area and driveways can be brought into compliance, Staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. b. Comply with Public Works Comments. c. Comply with Fire Department Comment. d. All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed downward and inward to the property and not towards any residential zoned area. Staff would not support a waiver of street improvements but would support a payment of 155 in -lieu for the street improvements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (NOVEMBER 16, 2000) Matthew Hampton was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal, briefly reviewing the comments provided to the applicant. The main areas discussed were the parking requirements including interior landscaping in the parking area, the need to include all proposed structures on the site plan, location of driveways, street improvements and dedication of right-of-way on 27th Street. The applicant asked about a waiver of street improvements. He was told he could submit a letter asking for a waiver. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FILE NO.: Z-6929 (DECEMBER 7, 2000) Matthew Hampton was present representing his application. There were 5 registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above, and with two amendments to the recommendation as stated in the hearing. First amendment, Public Works, based on further review and discussions, no,longer opposed a waiver of street improvements including waiving additional sidewalk construction along the side and northern streets, and a variance for driveway locations and design as shown on the proposed site plan. Second amendment, the applicant should adjust the location of the interior landscape island to allow the driveway and parking lane widths through the entire parking area to meet minimum ordinance standards. The parking and driveway lanes must be clearly striped. Madam Chair Adcock stated that since there were only eight Commissioners present, it was the Commission's Policy to offer applicants the opportunity to defer their item since they must have six positive votes out of the eight Commissioners present to be approved. Mr. Hampton chose to defer until January 25, 2001. The Commission placed the item and deferred it to the January public hearing. The vote was 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: on the consent deferral agenda 25, 2001 Planning Commission ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent. (JANUARY 25, 2001) Matthew Hampton and Derrick Gunn were present representing the application. There were four registered objectors and one registered proponent of the proposal present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above with one change. The applicant had agreed to make the in -lieu payment of 15% for the street improvements and Staff would support that approach to meeting the requirement for street improvements. Mr. Derrick Gunn spoke about the need he saw for another cemetery based on conversations he had with clients using his 5 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-6929 funeral home services, and why he and his partner chose this particular site. Mr. Hampton spoke about how through those conversations and visiting other cemeteries around the country, they had arrived at the design they were proposing. He emphasized that they wanted to develop an excellent well kept facility to establish a good long lasting reputation and have a facility they and the community could be proud of. He mentioned that they held meetings with the neighborhood and invited people to the site to explain first hand what their plan was. He stated that they were trying to work with the neighborhood people and do what they could to accommodate their concerns as best as they could. He added that they agreed to put up a fence on the north side to screen the cemetery from those houses, changed the driveways to keep traffic away from the neighborhood, and promised to help sponsor positive activities in the neighborhood. He continued that they complied with all state, city, and Arkansas Cemetery Board requirements. Mr. Hampton mentioned that people could look at their current funeral home to see how they develop and maintain their facilities. Jay Holstead, project architect, explained more about the design and how he felt it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. He described how it met all ordinance requirements, in some areas exceeded requirements such as landscaping, and dealt with many of the concerns of the neighborhood. Sabrina Hood, a homeowner for the past year on Allis Street directly across 27th Street, spoke in opposition. She stated that she did not want a "graveyard" in front of her home. She added that she already had a "graveyard" near the side and near the rear of her home on Roosevelt Road and Wright Avenue, and didn't want another one in front that she would have to see every time she came out her front door. Calvin Anderson, a resident on Booker Street for 15 years, spoke in opposition. He stated that he did not believe another cemetery was needed in the community, especially in this location. He added that having a McDonalds next door was inappropriate, and he claimed that the applicants had not contacted the surrounding residents as required. He also felt that the applicants were ignoring the needs of the surrounding neighbors when they talked about meeting the needs of the community. Mr. Anderson stated he felt property values would go down if this cemetery was built, and he didn't believe the C January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 applicants would put money into the neighborhood. He also felt this proposal would increase crime on Roosevelt, was not good for the neighborhood, and should not be in their neighborhood. Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Anderson how a cemetery would increase crime. Mr. Anderson responded that because of the trees and hedges, etc., added to the property, visibility into the cemetery would be blocked so you couldn't see what was going on in there. Ouida Clark, resident on Allis Street, spoke in opposition. Her first concern was traffic increase. She mentioned that she felt the traffic was already bad at the intersection of Roosevelt and Brown, and that it was very difficult for the school busses to get out onto Roosevelt there. She added that they didn't need any increase to that traffic. Her second concern was that she felt this proposal would present a bad image that people eat at McDonalds, go to jail across the street, and then die here at the cemetery. She continued that there was a gas station, a restaurant serving liquor, and two bail bondsmen in the past in that area, and that having a cemetery there would continue to deliver a bad message to the City's youth. Her third concern was a drainage problem that she felt would be complicated by the proposed cemetery. Her fourth point was that they had gathered nearly 200 signatures, 855 of them from 7 churches, in opposition to this proposal. She concluded by stating again that she was concerned with the location and felt it would send the wrong message to the youth. Janelle Romandia spoke in opposition. She stated that she lived in the neighborhood where the Gunn funeral home is located. She mentioned that she didn't feel they had kept promises made regarding hiring youth and improving landscaping, helping with neighborhood projects, and that they moved in there without any coordination with the neighborhood. She concluded by saying that people had enough problems along Asher and Roosevelt and did "not need this kind of thing". Mr. Hampton responded to the concerns expressed. In response to Ms. Hood's comment that she already had to see a cemetery every day, he asked what would be the difference in seeing one more. In response to Mr. Anderson's concerns he commented that people bought their property knowingly next to commercially zoned property and the uses that could go there. In response to the 7 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 concerns about the site being next to a McDonalds, he stated that McDonalds Corporation owns the site in question and knows what has been proposed, and they are not objecting to a cemetery being next door. Regarding the claim that proper contacts with the surrounding neighbors hadn't been made, he commented that they would not be before the Commission if they hadn't complied with the City's requirements regarding notification. He continued by stating that he had met with the City's crime prevention coordinator and discussed how they could install the landscaping and lighting in a way that would allow visibility into the area and not create a hiding place. Regarding traffic he felt they had worked with Staff in adjusting their access drives to allow a smooth flow and not add to traffic problems. Mr. Hampton also stated that he felt he and his partner were portraying a positive image to the youth since they were two fairly young (in their 20's) black males trying to do something positive for the community and be successful business men. In response to Ms. Romandia's concerns that they hadn't done all the things she expected in the community and at their current funeral home, he commented that they did hire youth to work and had been involved in community projects as much as they felt was possible. Mr. Hampton passed out to the Commissioners the petitions they had gathered with approximately 300 names of supporters of their project. He concluded that they do desire to work with and meet the community's needs and concerns as much as possible, but they know they can't totally please everyone. Pastor Kevin Allen from "Perfecting Christian Church" said he was speaking for himself and his whole church community in favor of the proposal. He stated that he felt that Gunn/Hampton funeral home was a good business, that the two owners had done good things for the community, and that the cemetery would be good for the area and beautify the site. Mr. Holstead, the architect, responded to the concern about drainage. He stated that their project would not cause any drainage problems, especially in the direction of the neighbors to the north since all the paved areas would drain west and south. He added that most of the area would be grass and landscaping which would hold and slow down water flow much more than if a commercial business went in on the site and had a large parking area. He also disagreed that a cemetery was a negative image for children since death is a normal fact of 8 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) J FILE NO.: Z-6929 life. When asked if he would want a cemetery next to where he lived Mr. Holstead said "he would love it, it wouldn't bother him at all." Mr. Gunn summarized by saying that the idea for this cemetery was based on discussions he had with several people who felt there was a need to have a place that was beautiful, serene and well kept to place their loved ones. He wished only to satisfy that expressed need. Commissioner Muse asked what kind of headstones would be used. Mr. Hampton responded that in response to neighborhood concerns about seeing headstones, they plan to use flat, ground level markers so they would not be visible outside of the cemetery. Commissioner Nunnley made the comment that he wasn't sure mandating flat headstones was appropriate because some people may want to use upright headstones and that requirement may be too limiting. Mr. Hampton said he was comfortable with using only flat headstones and he felt that would help make it look more like a "park" rather than a cemetery. Commissioner Lowry asked if there was any indication that McDonalds planned to move their restaurant if the proposed project were approved. Mr. Lawson, Planning Director, reported that staff had no such information. Commissioner Berry asked what other uses could be placed on this site "By -Right" because of its C-3 zoning. Staff read several of the uses from the ordinance. Mr. Lawson mentioned that several of the allowed uses would more likely create the noise, trash, odors, and traffic impacts that many of the neighbors were opposed to. Commissioner Berry added that the cemetery would be a very benign use compared to many of the uses allowed without any review by the Planning Commission, and actually provide a buffer from Roosevelt and other uses already in place. Chairman Downing asked the applicant to respond to the claim that they had not attended a neighborhood meeting they were asked to attend. Mr. Hampton responded that they had attended every meeting they were aware they had been asked to attend. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, to include the January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6929 applicant's agreement to use only flat ground level markers at this cemetery and install 5 foot sidewalks along Roosevelt, Johnson and Brown Streets, and to include a variance for the location of the driveway on Roosevelt Road. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 10