Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8066 Staff AnalysisJuly 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 NAME: LOCATION OWNER/APPLICANT FILE NO.: Z-8066 Little Maumelle Wastewater Treatment Plant — Conditional Use Permit 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle and Krone City of Little Rock/CDM PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a wastewater treatment plant on this undeveloped, 19± acre, R-2 zoned tract. 2 SITE LOCATION: The site is located adjacent to the northern city limits; approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle and Krone. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located within an area that is primarily undeveloped and heavily wooded. Properties for several hundred feet in all directions are zoned R-2 and are undeveloped and wooded other than for an Entergy transmission right-of-way that bisects this site. The transmission right-of- way has been cleared. An area of single family residences on larger tracts is located to the northwest of the site. The nearest residential property is approximately 260 feet west of the northwest corner of the proposed treatment plant site. Taking into consideration the design proposed by the applicant and the commitment to maintain buffering, staff believes the proposed use could be compatible with the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the following neighborhood associations were notified: DuQuesne Place, Aberdeen Court, Maywood Manor, Chevaux Court, Bayonne Place, Johnson Ranch, Margeaux Place and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods. As of this writing, staff has received no comment. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the site will be off of a driveway from a new collector street that is being constructed from Chenal Parkway to Cantrell Road. A paved driveway and parking will be constructed on the site. The number of parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the personnel working at the site. July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. In conjunction with the proposed parking areas additional interior and building landscaping will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Areas indicated as buffers are to be protected by orange contractor's fencing. Placement of the fencing is to be confirmed by staff prior to site work commencing. Areas indicated for development of future phases and elements are to be left undisturbed and protected. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS - 1 . OMMENTS 1. The western leg of Northwest Territory Parkway should be constructed per the Master Street Plan to a collector standard with 60 feet of right- of-way and 36 feet of street from back of curb to back curb and a 8 foot asphalt paved pedestrian walk -way instead of a 5 foot sidewalk along the northern right-of-way line. Public Works detail PW -23 should be used as the typical section. 2. A turn around should be provided at security gate for WB -60 vehicles. 3. On the preliminary plat, a round -a -bout is shown to be constructed on Northwest Territory Parkway at the wastewater treatment plant drive. UTILITY. FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Issue submitted by Little Rock Wastewater Utility, no comment required. Entergy: No comments received. 2 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-8066 CenterPoint Energy: No comments received. AT&T (SBC): No comments received. Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. A 12 - inch water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Approval as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 15, 2006) The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there was additional information needed to complete the analysis. Staff asked the applicant to provide information of fence design, signage, pavement materials, driveway and parking stall dimensions and roof materials. Staff asked for information on the designated contractor's storage area and the proposed generator. The applicant was asked to locate any dumpsters, with appropriate screening. 3 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 Public Works and Landscape Comments were presented and discussed. The majority of the discussion centered on the issue of street design and turn- arounds at the gates. The applicant was instructed to work with staff to address the issues. Comments from other reviewing agencies were presented. The applicant was instructed to respond to staff issues by June 21, 2006. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: Little Rock Wastewater Utility is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for construction of a wastewater treatment facility on this R-2 zoned, undeveloped, 19.14 acre tract. The property is located just inside the northern city limits, approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle Road and Krone. A 208 foot wide AP&L (Entergy) right-of-way bisects the tract. The remainder of the site is heavily wooded. The AP&L right-of-way encompasses 3.86 acres of the tract. The treatment facility is proposed to be built on the 11.03 acres west of the AP&L right-of-way. A portion of the 4.25 acres, east of the AP&L right-of-way is to be used as storage area for the contractor constructing the facility. That area will then become the designated stormwater detention area. Access to the site will be from a driveway off of Northwest Territory Parkway; a new collector street extending from Chenal Parkway to Cantrell Road. This project is an integral component of a Consent Administrative Order (CAO) with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quailty (ADEQ). The CAO, in part, requires adherence to the Sierra Club Settlement Agreement, which references the above project identified, with construction time period stipulations. The initial construction of the facility will treat an average capacity of four (4) million gallons of wastewater per day with a peak daily capacity of fourteen (14) million gallons. Wastewater will be received via the Little Maumelle Pump Station. Treated wastewater will be discharged to the Arkansas River via an appropriate NPDES permit administered by ADEQ. Three full-time personnel are currently planned for the facility for 8 -hour per day 40 hour work shift for normal operations. The facility will be remote monitored through the evening and on weekends with maintenance and operation staff mobilized as needed. The campus will consist of several buildings for wastewater treatment, operations, and maintenance of the facility. Each building will be constructed of load bearing concrete block walls. The facades of the buildings will be split face 4 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 concrete block with an integral color. Smooth faced and center score concrete block will be integrated into the facades to add interest. The roof system will be a metal frame with purlins and a standing seam metal roof with a slope of 6:12 or greater. Outlined below are the structure uses and a brief description. Please reference the site plan for building numbers and dimensions. Operations/Maintenance: This facility will be utilizied by personnel for facility operations and maintenance. 2. Blower/Generator: This facility will house the blowers necessary to force air needed for wastewater treatment. The generator will utilize diesel fuel and provide redundant power for the facility. This building will incorporate sound attenuation measures. 3. Headworks: The facility will provide preliminary treatment of the wastewater for the facility where screens and grit removal equipment will be housed. Screenings and grit will be stored inside the building. This building will be treated for odor emitting gases. 4. Aeration Basin: This structure provides basins where diffused air is introduced for the wastewater treatment process. The structure will not be fully enclosed. The basins will be covered with a pre -cast concrete "T" structure with a membrane drainage system and soil to support vegetation. 5. Clarifiers: This structure separates suspended solids in the wastewater treatment process. The structure will not be fully enclosed. The basins will be covered with a pre -cast concrete "T" structure with a membrane drainage system and soil to support vegetation. 6. UV Disinfection: This building will provide ultra -violet disinfection equipment for the wastewater treatment process. 7. Sludge Storage: This building will store waste sludge from the wastewater treatment process. 8. Solids Handling This building is dedicated to load waste sludge from the wastewater treatment process. Two methods of sludge disposal will be provided for the facility within this building. Sludge disposal via tanker trucks will require 6 loads per week at facility start up and 14 loads per week at facility capacity. Sludge disposal via dump trucks utilizing dewatering equipment will require 4 loads per week at facility start up and 8 loads per week at facility capacity. This building will have the capability to house a tanker truck and/or dump truck within the building during the loading process. This building will be treated for odor emitting gases. 5 July 6, 2006 M NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 9. Aeration Odor Control: This building will provide odor control equipment for the aeration basins which require odor emitting gas capture and treatment. Landscaping on the site will be in accordance to Chapter 15, Article IV of the City of Little Rock's Municipal Code. A minimum 50 foot buffer will be maintained from the structures and buildings to the property line around the entire perimeter. The existing vegetation in the buffer zone, as well as, future building areas will be undisturbed to the maximum extent practical. Areas that must be disturbed during construction will be re-established. On June 21, 2006, the applicants responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The entire 19.14 acre site will be enclosed by an 8 -foot tall, color -vinyl coated metal chain link fence. The undisturbed buffer areas have been labeled on the site plan and will be protected by orange contractor's fencing prior to any site work. Signage will consist of a single monument - style ground sign at the entrance to the facility. The sign will be 4 feet in height and 40 square feet in area. Driveway widths and parking stall dimensions have been shown to comply with ordinance design standards. The driveways and parking areas will be paved either with asphalt or concrete. There will be no exterior dumpster on the site. The metal roofs for the buildings will be a colored, non -reflective, 24 gauge standing seam metal roof system with concealed fasteners. The finish on the roof panels will be a Xynar 500" that carries a 20 year warranty against cracking, bubbling or pealing. The generator will be exercised once a week for 30 minutes. The generator will be housed inside the blower/generator building where sound attenuation panels will mitigate excessive noise. All future building areas will be left undisturbed to the maximum extent practicable. On-site lighting shall be in compliance with "dark sky" guidelines. However, sufficient lighting shall be used for OSHA standards as needed for maintenance needs. Appropriate cul-de-sacs or turnarounds will be provided at the gates. Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. The applicant has addressed issues raised by staff regarding the requested C.U.P. There is no bill of assurance for this unplatted acreage tract. The following public meeting schedule has been conducted with adjoining property owners and concerned citizens regarding this project. February 21, 2006 — Field Visit to Facility Property March 13, 2006 — Wastewater Treatment Process Workshop March 21, 2006 — Odor Control Workshop April 4, 2006 — Noise, Lighting, Aesthetic Control Workshop April 10, 2006 — Trip to Vancouver, Washington May 11, 2006 — Aesthetic and Site Plan Workshop 0 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit as proposed by the applicant and outlined in the staff analysis subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 6, 2006) The applicants were present. There were four (4) registered objectors present. One (1) e-mail of opposition had been sent to the Commissioners by one (1) of the objectors. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Commissioner Langlais recused on the item. Hal Anderson, engineer with Little Rock Wastewater Utility (LRWU), addressed the Commission. He made a power- point presentation in which he explained the need for the facility and the history of public meetings and workshops leading up to the Commission hearing. He stated the plan before the Commission had been recommended for approval by staff and approved by the Sanitary Sewer Committee. Tom Adams, project architect, continued the presentation by discussing the visual quality of the development. He showed sketches of the development plan, elevations and sight -lines. Hall Anderson continued by discussing what he referred to as the "Three S's"; sight, sound and smell. He spoke of the campus -like setting, the noise attenuation measures and the odor control measures. Mr. Anderson stated changes were made to the site plan to try to address issues, which had been raised by concerned parties. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, John Jarratt, Director of Administration and Community Relations with LRWU, stated the Sierra Club had been involved in the site selection process and had been made aware of all meetings and workshops. Mary Dornhoffer, of 6916 Westridge Rd., spoke in opposition. She stated she was opposed to the treatment process chosen by LRWU for the facility. She presented a petition containing signatures of persons opposed to the facility. (staff did not receive a copy of the petition) Ms. Dornhoffer presented a cost analysis in which she stated a membrane system was less expensive than the proposed step system. 17 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 Phyllis Storthz, of 5201 Sherwood Rd., spoke in opposition. She also stated she was opposed to the proposed treatment method. Larry Storthz, of 900 N. University Ave., also spoke of his opposition to the treatment method. Hal Kemp, attorney representing the owner of Highway 10 LLC, the seller of the land to the LRWU, addressed the Commission. He presented a document titled `List of Surviving Agreements" in reference to the sale agreement between the parties. He asked that the conditions outlined in that document be made a part of the conditional use permit. Mr. Kemp also asked that staff clarify that the current CUP application did not allow for the later addition of an equalization basin on the site without Planning Commission approval. Director of Planning and Development Tony Bozynski responded that Mr. Kemp was correct, that the CUP site plan was specific and did not include an equalization basin. In response to questions from Mr. Kemp, Mr. Bozynski stated there were no tertiary or treatment basins on the site and the planning director could not administratively approve such additions to the approved site plan. Mr. Kemp stated his client was also opposed to the proposed treatment method. Commissioner Yates asked Mr. Kemp why his client wanted the surviving agreements made part of the CUP. Mr. Kemp responded that the agreements contained requirements that were specific to site development. Commissioner Yates asked Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson if it was appropriate for the Commission to take such action. Ms. Dawson responded that it was. Commissioner Meyer noted one statement in the surviving agreements was that all buildings would be fully enclosed. He asked if that also referred to the aeration facilities since they were not proposed to be fully enclosed. Mr. Kemp responded that he understood the aeration facilities were covered but not completely enclosed and the statement did not apply to them. Hal Anderson addressed the Commission and spoke of the advances, which had been made in the step treatment process. He stated the proposed site plan incorporated the elements outlined in the surviving agreements and the Utility had no problem accepting the agreements as conditions. He stated there was a misconception about the facility's capacity. He stated, at full build out in about twenty years, the facility would have a capacity of 4 mgd and the initial capacity would be 1.5 mgd. Commissioner Adcock asked why the Utility did not choose the membrane system. Mr. Anderson responded that the Utility's staff and consultants had studied the various types of systems and had determined that the step feed process was best. He stated the Sanitary Sewer Committee agreed and chose 8 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 the step feed system. Mr. Anderson stated there had been advances in the step feed process. Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson interjected and reminded the Commission of the standard for reviewing a proposed conditional use permit as outlined in the Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Anderson stated the initial cost to build a membrane system was about $5,000,000.00 more than a step feed system and the annual operating costs were about $200,000.00 more. In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Ms. Dawson stated the Sanitary Sewer Committee was the appropriate body to review the issue of treatment process. In response to a question from Commissioner Yates, John Jarratt stated the utility had met with Bill Davies, Director of State Parks, and Mr. Davies had no problem with the proposal. At the request of Chairman Stebbins, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the terms of the surviving agreements were to be incorporated as conditions of the CUP. Commissioner Taylor commented that the technology for the step feed process has improved and does work. He stated he would prefer to see the membrane system used. Hal Anderson stated a group of nearby property owners and interested parties had been taken to visit a plant in Vancouver, which utilized the step feed process. He stated there was no noise or odor discernable outside the facility. Commissioner Adcock read from an e-mail, which had been sent by Ms. Dornhoffer in which she contended that construction and operation of a membrane system was actually less than a step feed system. Mr. Anderson responded that the Utility's analysis and study did not support that contention. Commissioner Yates asked if the Sanitary Sewer Committee had heard all this information and voted unanimously to support the step feed process. Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Yates asked if the Sanitary Sewer Committee had been involved in the process since the beginning. Again, Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively. At the request of Commissioner Williams, Tony Bozynski explained why staff was recommending approval. A motion was made to approve the application as amended, including all staff 9 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 comments and conditions. The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstaining (Adcock) and 1 recusal (Langlais). The motion was approved. 10 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8066 NAME: Little Maumelle Wastewater Treatment Plant — Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle and Krone OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/CDM PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a wastewater treatment plant on this undeveloped, 19t acre, R-2 zoned tract. SITE LOCATION: The site is located adjacent to the northern city limits; approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle and Krone. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD - The property is located within an area that is primarily undeveloped and heavily wooded. Properties for several hundred feet in all directions are zoned R-2 and are undeveloped and wooded other than for an Entergy transmission right-of-way that bisects this site. The transmission right-of- way has been cleared. An area of single family residences on larger tracts is located to the northwest of the site. The nearest residential property is approximately 260 feet west of the northwest corner of the proposed treatment plant site. Taking into consideration the design proposed by the applicant and the commitment to maintain buffering, staff believes the proposed use could be compatible with the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the following neighborhood associations were notified: DuQuesne Place, Aberdeen Court, Maywood Manor, Chevaux Court, Bayonne Place, Johnson Ranch, Margeaux Place and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods. As of this writing, staff has received no comment. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the site will be off of a driveway from a new collector street that is being constructed from Chenal Parkway to Cantrell Road. A paved driveway and parking will be constructed on the site. The number of parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the personnel working at the site. July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13(Cont.)___FILE NO.: Z-8066 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. In conjunction with the proposed parking areas additional interior and building landscaping will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Areas indicated as buffers are to be protected by orange contractor's fencing. Placement of the fencing is to be confirmed by staff prior to site work commencing. Areas indicated for development of future phases and elements are to be left undisturbed and protected. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. The western leg of Northwest Territory Parkway should be constructed per the Master Street Plan to a collector standard with 60 feet of right- of-way and 36 feet of street from back of curb to back curb and a 8 foot asphalt paved pedestrian walk -way instead of a 5 foot sidewalk along the northern right-of-way line. Public Works detail PW -23 should be used as the typical section. 2. A turn around should be provided at security gate for WB -60 vehicles. 3. On the preliminary plat, a round -a -bout is shown to be constructed on Northwest Territory Parkway at the wastewater treatment plant drive. 6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Issue submitted by Little Rock Wastewater Utility, no comment required. Entergy: No comments received. 2 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8066 CenterPoint Energy: No comments received. AT&T (SBC): No comments received. Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. A 12 - inch water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Approval as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 15, 2006) The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there was additional information needed to complete the analysis. Staff asked the applicant to provide information of fence design, signage, pavement materials, driveway and parking stall dimensions and roof materials. Staff asked for information on the designated contractor's storage area and the proposed generator. The applicant was asked to locate any dumpsters, with appropriate screening. 3 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 Public Works and Landscape Comments were presented and discussed. The majority of the discussion centered on the issue of street design and turn- arounds at the gates. The applicant was instructed to work with staff to address the issues. Comments from other reviewing agencies were presented. The applicant was instructed to respond to staff issues by June 21, 2006. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: Little Rock Wastewater Utility is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for construction of a wastewater treatment facility on this R-2 zoned, undeveloped, 19.14 acre tract. The property is located just inside the northern city limits, approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of East Pinnacle Road and Krone. A 208 foot wide AP&L (Entergy) right-of-way bisects the tract. The remainder of the site is heavily wooded. The AP&L right-of-way encompasses 3.86 acres of the tract. The treatment facility is proposed to be built on the 11.03 acres west of the AP&L right-of-way. A portion of the 4.25 acres, east of the AP&L right-of-way is to be used as storage area for the contractor constructing the facility. That area will then become the designated stormwater detention area. Access to the site will be from a driveway off of Northwest Territory Parkway; a new collector street extending from Chenal Parkway to Cantrell Road. This project is an integral component of a Consent Administrative Order (CAO) with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quailty (ADEQ). The CAO, in part, requires adherence to the Sierra Club Settlement Agreement, which references the above project identified, with construction time period stipulations. The initial construction of the facility will treat an average capacity of four (4) million gallons of wastewater per day with a peak daily capacity of fourteen (14) million gallons. Wastewater will be received via the Little Maumelle Pump Station. Treated wastewater will be discharged to the Arkansas River via an appropriate NPDES permit administered by ADEQ. Three full-time personnel are currently planned for the facility for 8 -hour per day 40 hour work shift for normal operations. The facility will be remote monitored through the evening and on weekends with maintenance and operation staff mobilized as needed. The campus will consist of several buildings for wastewater treatment, operations, and maintenance of the facility. Each building will be constructed of load bearing concrete block walls. The facades of the buildings will be split face 4 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 concrete block with an integral color. Smooth faced and center score concrete block will be integrated into the facades to add interest. The roof system will be a metal frame with purlins and a standing seam metal roof with a slope of 6:12 or greater. Outlined below are the structure uses and a brief description. Please reference the site plan for building numbers and dimensions. Operations/Maintenance: This facility will be utilizied by personnel for facility operations and maintenance. 2. Blower/Generator: This facility will house the blowers necessary to force air needed for wastewater treatment. The generator will utilize diesel fuel and provide redundant power for the facility. This building will incorporate sound attenuation measures. 3. Headworks: The facility will provide preliminary treatment of the wastewater for the facility where screens and grit removal equipment will be housed. Screenings and grit will be stored inside the building. This building will be treated for odor emitting gases. 4. Aeration Basin: This structure provides basins where diffused air is introduced for the wastewater treatment process. The structure will not be fully enclosed. The basins will be covered with a pre -cast concrete "T" structure with a membrane drainage system and soil to support vegetation. 5. Clarifiers: This structure separates suspended solids in the wastewater treatment process. The structure will not be fully enclosed. The basins will be covered with a pre -cast concrete "T" structure with a membrane drainage system and soil to support vegetation. 6. UV Disinfection: This building will provide ultra -violet disinfection equipment for the wastewater treatment process. 7. Sludge Storage: This building will store waste sludge from the wastewater treatment process. 8. Solids Handling: This building is dedicated to load waste sludge from the wastewater treatment process. Two methods of sludge disposal will be provided for the facility within this building. Sludge disposal via tanker trucks will require 6 loads per week at facility start up and 14 loads per week at facility capacity. Sludge disposal via dump trucks utilizing dewatering equipment will require 4 loads per week at facility start up and 8 loads per week at facility capacity. This building will have the capability to house a tanker truck and/or dump truck within the building during the loading process. This building will be treated for odor emitting gases. 5 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont. 0U01WAF-1iI:I:- 9. Aeration Odor Control_ This building will provide odor control equipment for the aeration basins which require odor emitting gas capture and treatment. Landscaping on the site will be in accordance to Chapter 15, Article IV of the City of Little Rock's Municipal Code. A minimum 50 foot buffer will be maintained from the structures and buildings to the property line around the entire perimeter. The existing vegetation in the buffer zone, as well as, future building areas will be undisturbed to the maximum extent practical. Areas that must be disturbed during construction will be re-established. On June 21, 2006, the applicants responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The entire 19.14 acre site will be enclosed by an 8 -foot tall, color -vinyl coated metal chain link fence. The undisturbed buffer areas have been labeled on the site plan and will be protected by orange contractor's fencing prior to any site work. Signage will consist of a single monument - style ground sign at the entrance to the facility. The sign will be 4 feet in height and 40 square feet in area. Driveway widths and parking stall dimensions have been shown to comply with ordinance design standards. The driveways and parking areas will be paved either with asphalt or concrete. There will be no exterior dumpster on the site. The metal roofs for the buildings will be a colored, non -reflective, 24 gauge standing seam metal roof system with concealed fasteners. The finish on the roof panels will be a "Kynar 500" that carries a 20 year warranty against cracking, bubbling or pealing. The generator will be exercised once a week for 30 minutes. The generator will be housed inside the blower/generator building where sound attenuation panels will mitigate excessive noise. All future building areas will be left undisturbed to the maximum extent practicable. On-site lighting shall be in compliance with "dark sky" guidelines. However, sufficient lighting shall be used for OSHA standards as needed for maintenance needs. Appropriate cul-de-sacs or turnarounds will be provided at the gates. Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. The applicant has addressed issues raised by staff regarding the requested C.U.P. There is no bill of assurance for this unplatted acreage tract. The following public meeting schedule has been conducted with adjoining property owners and concerned citizens regarding this project. February 21, 2006 — Field Visit to Facility Property March 13, 2006 — Wastewater Treatment Process Workshop March 21, 2006 — Odor Control Workshop April 4, 2006 — Noise, Lighting, Aesthetic Control Workshop April 10, 2006 — Trip to Vancouver, Washington May 11, 2006 —Aesthetic and Site Plan Workshop July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit as proposed by the applicant and outlined in the staff analysis subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 6, 2006) The applicants were present. There were four (4) registered objectors present. One (1) e-mail of opposition had been sent to the Commissioners by one (1) of the objectors. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Commissioner Langlais recused on the item. Hal Anderson, engineer with Little Rock Wastewater Utility (LRWU), addressed the Commission. He made a power- point presentation in which he explained the need for the facility and the history of public meetings and workshops leading up to the Commission hearing. He stated the plan before the Commission had been recommended for approval by staff and approved by the Sanitary Sewer Committee. Tom Adams, project architect, continued the presentation by discussing the visual quality of the development. He showed sketches of the development plan, elevations and sight -lines. Hall Anderson continued by discussing what he referred to as the "Three S's"; sight, sound and smell. He spoke of the campus -like setting, the noise attenuation measures and the odor control measures. Mr. Anderson stated changes were made to the site plan to try to address issues, which had been raised by concerned parties. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, John Jarratt, Director of Administration and Community Relations with LRWU, stated the Sierra Club had been involved in the site selection process and had been made aware of all meetings and workshops. Mary Dornhoffer, of 6916 Westridge Rd., spoke in opposition. She stated she was opposed to the treatment process chosen by LRWU for the facility. She presented a petition containing signatures of persons opposed to the facility. (staff did not receive a copy of the petition) Ms. Dornhoffer presented a cost analysis in which she stated a membrane system was less expensive than the proposed step system. II July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 Phyllis Storthz, of 5201 Sherwood Rd., spoke in opposition. She also stated she was opposed to the proposed treatment method. Larry Storthz, of 900 N. University Ave., also spoke of his opposition to the treatment method. Hal Kemp, attorney representing the owner of Highway 10 LLC, the seller of the land to the LRWU, addressed the Commission. He presented a document titled 'List of Surviving Agreements" in reference to the sale agreement between the parties. He asked that the conditions outlined in that document be made a part of the conditional use permit. Mr. Kemp also asked that staff clarify that the current CUP application did not allow for the later addition of an equalization basin on the site without Planning Commission approval. Director of Planning and Development Tony Bozynski responded that Mr. Kemp was correct, that the CUP site plan was specific and did not include an equalization basin. In response to questions from Mr. Kemp, Mr. Bozynski stated there were no tertiary or treatment basins on the site and the planning director could not administratively approve such additions to the approved site plan. Mr. Kemp stated his client was also opposed to the proposed treatment method. Commissioner Yates asked Mr. Kemp why his client wanted the surviving agreements made part of the CUP. Mr. Kemp responded that the agreements contained requirements that were specific to site development. Commissioner Yates asked Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson if it was appropriate for the Commission to take such action. Ms. Dawson responded that it was. Commissioner Meyer noted one statement in the surviving agreements was that all buildings would be fully enclosed. He asked if that also referred to the aeration facilities since they were not proposed to be fully enclosed. Mr. Kemp responded that he understood the aeration facilities were covered but not completely enclosed and the statement did not apply to them. Hal Anderson addressed the Commission and spoke of the advances, which had been made in the step treatment process. He stated the proposed site plan incorporated the elements outlined in the surviving agreements and the Utility had no problem accepting the agreements as conditions. He stated there was a misconception about the facility's capacity. He stated, at full build out in about twenty years, the facility would have a capacity of 4 mgd and the initial capacity would be 1.5 mgd. Commissioner Adcock asked why the Utility did not choose the membrane system. Mr. Anderson responded that the Utility's staff and consultants had studied the various types of systems and had determined that the step feed process was best. He stated the Sanitary Sewer Committee agreed and chose 8 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8066 the step feed system. Mr. Anderson stated there had been advances in the step feed process. Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson interjected and reminded the Commission of the standard for reviewing a proposed conditional use permit as outlined in the Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Anderson stated the initial cost to build a membrane system was about $5,000,000.00 more than a step feed system and the annual operating costs were about $200,000.00 more. In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Ms. Dawson stated the Sanitary Sewer Committee was the appropriate body to review the issue of treatment process. In response to a question from Commissioner Yates, John Jarratt stated the utility had met with Bill Davies, Director of State Parks, and Mr. Davies had no problem with the proposal. At the request of Chairman Stebbins, Mr. Anderson confirmed that the terms of the surviving agreements were to be incorporated as conditions of the CUP. Commissioner Taylor commented that the technology for the step feed process has improved and does work. He stated he would prefer to see the membrane system used. Hal Anderson stated a group of nearby property owners and interested parties had been taken to visit a plant in Vancouver, which utilized the step feed process. He stated there was no noise or odor discernable outside the facility. Commissioner Adcock read from an e-mail, which had been sent by Ms. Dornhoffer in which she contended that construction and operation of a membrane system was actually less than a step feed system. Mr. Anderson responded that the Utility's analysis and study did not support that contention. Commissioner Yates asked if the Sanitary Sewer Committee had heard all this information and voted unanimously to support the step feed process. Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Yates asked if the Sanitary Sewer Committee had been involved in the process since the beginning. Again, Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively. At the request of Commissioner Williams, Tony Bozynski explained why staff was recommending approval. A motion was made to approve the application as amended, including all staff 9 July 6, 2006 ITEM NO.: 13 [Cont. comments and conditions. 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, motion was approved. FILE NO.: Z The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of abstaining (Adcock) and 1 recusal (Langlais). The 10