HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4985-A Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: Ws FILE NO.: Z -4985-A
NAME: R & R Residential Care and Health Center - PCD
LOCATION: At the intersection of Wolfe Street on the north
side of Roosevelt Road.
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Rose Ruffin Michael Hahn Associates,
6401 E. 49th Street Architect
No. Little Rock, AR 72117 2100 Broadway
945-1406 or 374-9824 P. O. Box 1285
Little Rock, AR 72203
374-2009
AREA: 1.66 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Planned Residential District
PROPOSED USES: Residential care facility and health fitness
facilities
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 11
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
To Change from a PRD to PCD
This application proposes the amendment of the previously
approved R & R Residential Care Facility. The proposal, as
now drafted, eliminates the child daycare facility on the
west corner of the project. In place of the child care
facility is proposed a two-story health fitness center.
The phasing plan for this proposal is now changed to provide
for the health fitness center to be Phase I and the
residential care facility to be Phase II. The health
fitness facility is projected for a completion date within
three to five months of final development plan and plat
approval.
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Access to the parking area at the residential care facility
facing Roosevelt Road is proposed as a two-way drive in lieu
of the original approved one-way drive. This is proposed
due to a change in character of vehicle traffic on site.
The residential care facility which is now Phase II is
projected for completion within five to seven months after
completion of Phase I. The construction of Phase II is
subject to the approval by the Long Term Care Office of the
Department of Human Services.
GENERAL OBJECTIVE:
It is proposed to consolidate 1.66 acres of individually
zoned parcels of property under a single PUD District for
the purpose of unified, controlled development comprising a
health fitness facility and a residential care facility.
The development will fulfill the need for individual human
fitness and health care services.
HEALTH FITNESS FACILITY OBJECTIVE:
The proposed health fitness facility offers to children and
adults instructional programs in exercising, gymnastics,
martial arts, aerobics and dance. In addition to the
instructional programs, a physical therapy program will be
offered for the residential care facility. The student load
shall be 100 with a maximum of 40 adults at any one time
plus a maximum of 60 children below the age of 18. The
facility staff shall comprise five individuals including
three certified and/or licensed instructors, an
administrative secretary and the director.
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY:
The proposed residential care facility is represented in
this plan in -the same form as previously approved. The
facility offers the needed housing for those individuals
limited by age, income and abilities but yet independently
mobile to the extent of not requiring institutional care in
a hospital or nursing home.
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This application involves the conversion of a
previously approved Planned Residential District to a
Planned Commercial District, the purpose of which is to
change a daycare center on the southwest quadrant of
the property into a health fitness facility. The
proposal as now drafted consists of basically the same
proposal on the east one-half of the block with some
minor modifications. The southwest quadrant has been
completely redesigned as to access, parking and
building size. The building now proposed is some two
stories in height, over 9000 square feet and located
25 feet from Roosevelt Road. The previous proposal
incorporated a one-story smaller building well situated
to the north away from Roosevelt Road and tied to the
east and west boundary streets by a one-way traffic
flow.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property currently is vacant on the southwest
quadrant which is the principal area of involvement for
this modification. The land has been cleared to some
extent. The only structures in-place on this
development include the existing residential care two-
story building facing to the east on Wolfe Street.
C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Roosevelt Road is identified as a principal arterial on
the Master Street Plan. Currently, there exists a
60 foot right-of-way. An additional 30 feet of
dedication is normally required along a principal
arterial. There is currently no sidewalk located along
Roosevelt Road and should be developed in concert with
this plat. The existing sidewalks along Wolfe Street
have some damage; repair should be accomplished. It is
apparent•from review of the minute record of the
previous submittal on this site that the Roosevelt Road
widening of right-of-way and improvements, sidewalk and
pavement, were not discussed nor were there specific
requirements made. The Engineering Department at this
time suggests that some action may be appropriate. The
City of Little Rock at this time is reviewing the
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
possible changing of standards on principal arterials
within existing built-up areas to possibly reduce the
impact of widening and additional right-of-way.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
None of the issues, legal, technical or design problems
typically associated with a project of this size exist
in this application. There are some questions that
Staff would like to deal with concerning changes from
the previous submittal and approval. These have to do
with absorption of one-half of the abandoned alley
behind the residential care facility, the modification
of landscaping and the installation of a service drive.
None of these are issues of particular concern inasmuch
as they generally provide for more parking and,
perhaps, additional landscaping. However, in the
redesign, the installation of a service drive could
cause unnecessary traffic flow between Wolfe Street and
the health fitness facility to the rear of a building
which will house elderly persons.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff review of this proposal has resulted
in a number of concerns. These are:
The increased height of this building over the
previously approved structure; that concern being
based upon its proximity to Roosevelt Road and the
fact that most of the immediate residential
structures are one-story. There are some two-
story buildings in the immediate area, but not
sufficient in number to warrant changing the
character of the neighborhood.
The primary east west drive which was previously
designed to accommodate the daycare center is now
designed as a two-way flow to parallel Roosevelt
Road. This may be of some concern to the Traffic
Engineer; however, specific comment has not been
received.
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
The phases within this project have been
completely reversed. In the initial approval, the
residential care facility was the primary object
for construction, and that was to be the first
phase. This plan alters the approach to one of
constructing this health fitness facility as
Phase I. The architect and the owner have
indicated that there will be a strong
interrelationship between this building and the
residential care facility, and that the two phases
will be initiated construction -wise in close time
frame. There is no assurance of this, however,
and we could very well see that a commercial
building will occupy the corner at Battery Street
and no residential care facility ever constructed
on Wolfe Street. The above is not intended to
indicate a total negative view by the Staff of
this proposal. There are some positives.
Apparently there has been an increase in parking
spaces of some 21 stalls to accommodate the
increased building area. This results in
provision of 7 spaces more than the ordinance
requires for this type of facility. The ordinance
would require 25; there is available 32 in this
proposal. The existing residential care facility
at the time of construction was permitted to
utilize the parking standard that is included in
the ordinance for rooming houses and boarding
houses inasmuch as the operation does not include
medical support facilities. The new residential
care facility will be much the same operation
thereby requiring that same standard which is a
.5 spaces per person on the occupancy. That will
make a parking requirement of 35 spaces.
Currently, there are 34 in the layout around the
residential care facility. The total parking then
on this project consists of 66 parking spaces with
a requirement for 60 total spaces.
Moving from the analysis of the specific design
detail and to the question of land use, the
Planning Staff, at this point, has considerable
problems with the proposal as presented. These
are primarily in the area of the introduction of a
two-story commercial building on a corner across
from an elementary school in a quiet residential
neighborhood. The only commercial in this area
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
that is established is at the corner immediately
to the east of High Street. This proposal could
be construed to be a spot zone of PCD on the
corner of Battery Street.
Additionally, Staff has concerns about the impact
of the kinds of traffic flows one would expect on
this health fitness facility site inasmuch as
these kinds of activities are not limited to the
hours of a daycare center. They will,
undoubtedly, have evening classes running to late
hours of the evening.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff view of this proposal, after much
consideration, is a recommendation for denial of the
conversion of this PRD to a PCD. We feel there are
sufficient reasons embodied in the use, spot zoning,
and traffic effects to warrant this recommendation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(March 23, 1989)
The owner was represented by her architect, Mr. Michael
Hahn. The Planning Staff presented its recommendation on
the revision to the current PRD. The Staff outlined the
design concerns that remained in this proposal and pointed
out the Subdivision Committee would not be dealing with the
land use issue but only those matters pertaining to design.
Mr. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department offered
comments concerning the appropriateness of dealing with the
required dedication for right-of-way on Roosevelt Road. He
indicated that even though this item may not have been dealt
With on the previous planned unit development, the matter
should be retired. It was pointed out that the dedication
could be provided as a minimum. The appropriateness of
widening the street would be another matter to be resolved
by the Planning Commission. A brief discussion followed
involving several issues of siting of the buildings and
access. No specific comments were offered to be passed to
the full Commission.
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 4, 1989)
The Planning Staff reported to the Commission that a request
had been made by the owner/developer for a deferral of this
item to the Planning Commission meeting on May 16, 1989.
This would afford the owner sufficient time to address the
concerns of neighborhood objectors and the Staff
recommendation. The Commission Chairman asked if there were
objectors present. There were several persons in
attendance. These persons presented a petition for the
record containing 21 signatures of objectors. The Chairman
asked if these persons had concerns about deferral of the
item until May 16. The response was that they could return
on that date to present their objections. The Commission
then determined it appropriate to place this item on the
Consent Agenda for deferral to May 16. A motion was made to
that effect. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays,
2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 4, 1989)
The applicant was not present nor was she represented. The
Staff pointed out that the issues of the site plan had been
discussed thoroughly previously, and that the remaining
issue before resolution before the full Commission was a
meeting by the owner and the adjacent property owners.
There was no further discussion of this matter. The case is
forwarded to the full Commission for resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 16, 1989)
The applicant was represented by attorney B. J. McCoy.
There was one person registered to speak against the
proposed development, Miss C. J. Giroir. The Planning Staff
presented to the Commission several reasons for the
recommendation of denial as it appeared in the agenda.
Mr. McCoy stated that in regard to the Staff's
recommendation, there were several concerns he would like to
address. First of all, the traffic study performed
indicated that the peak hours for increased traffic on
Roosevelt Road occurs during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The activity from
Mitchell School places an increase during the hours of
7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. The
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
.._......................
operational hours for the recreation facility will be
approximately from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with no
particular hour, or hours, when an added burden to the
traffic on Roosevelt Road will occur. In regard to the
height of the building for this development, it will not
change the: character of the neighborhood as presented by the
Staff. There presently exists in the vicinity of this
proposed development a three-story structure, Mitchell
School, and several two-story houses. If the Planning Staff
feels strongly that the phasing as submitted is a problem,
the applicant will be more than willing to have conditions
placed on any approval, or make any changes to the phasing,
in order to accommodate the Staff's concerns.
Efforts were made by the applicant to meet with the
neighborhood. On April 17, 1989, a meeting was held at the
site and, of the people contacted, only twelve showed up.
The major concern of those twelve persons was that they had
no real understanding as to what the applicant was
attempting to develop on the site. As a means of following
up the notice about the meeting on the site, surveys were
sent out to those twelve people. Only four of the surveys
were returned; two indicated that they no longer had a
problem with the development, one stated continued
opposition, and one'did not indicate for or against. Mr.
McCoy stated that the problems stated by Staff did not.
appear to be major. The applicant is attempting to provide
a service to this particular area of the City, which is not
only needed but will help to improve the overall appearance
of the City as a whole.
Jerry Gardner of the City Engineering Staff was asked
whether a traffic study of the area had been done. Mr.
Gardner stated it had not, but with Roosevelt Road being
narrow, this particular development will impact existing
traffic problems. A Commissioner stated that since the City
was aware of this fact, it would appear that a study should
have been performed, especially due to the known traffic
problems, the possible problem of turning off Roosevelt Road
to the site, and the potential of this development creating
a site distance problem. The Engineering Staff was
instructed to perform a study to address the above issues.
It was further explained to Mr. McCoy that it appears the
phasing and height problems were minor compared to the use,
which is major (a health club).
May 16, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Continued)
Miss C. J. Giroir represented two of the property owners
abutting the proposed development. She stated that her two
clients live across the street and neither received the
survey mentioned by Mr. McCoy. The two clients she was
representing feel the proposal should be denied because of:
(a) increased traffic; (b) safety to the neighborhood due to
the fact of Mitchell School; (c) the neighborhood as a whole
does not want the development because it is not compatible
and would change the character; and (d) when one thinks of
education, there is a fundamental need, but when one thinks
of a health club, it is not a necessity but a matter of
simple desire.
Mr. McCoy responded to Miss Giroir by stating that the
neighborhood is in need of quality activity, and what better
way to achieve this than from responsible people who work
and live in the area. If anything, this development will
have a positive impact on the area.
The discussion continued. It was then determined that if
the proposal was voted on, there probably would be a
negative vote. Therefore, the agent for the applicant was
asked if he would consent to a deferral because there were
too many issues where additional information was needed.
The agent stated he would definitely prefer deferral versus
a negative vote. Before the motion for deferral was made
and voted on, the agent was instructed to have prepared
detail information regarding the types of commercial
activities, hours of operation, the number of persons to be
served, and a general overview of any changes to the phasing
process by the next meeting. Engineering was instructed to
develop traffic and site distance studies for Roosevelt
Road. A motion was then made to defer this item to the June
27, 1989 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
April 4, 1989
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4
FILE NO.: Z -4985-A
NAME: R & R Residential Care and Health Center- P G O
LOCATION: At the intersection of Wolfe Street on the north
side of Roosevelt Road.
DEVELOPER:
Rose Ruffin
6401 E. 49th Street
No. Little Rock, AR 72117
945-1406 or 374-9824
ENGINEER:
Michael Hahn Associates,
Architect
2100 Broadway
P. O. Box 1285
Little Rock, AR 72203
374-2009
AREA: 1.66 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: Planned Residential District
PROPOSED USES: Residential care facility and health fitness
facilities
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8
CENSUS TRACT: 11
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
..... ... ....
To c.t- tmQe -Ciro%% a pR0 To Pc 0
This application proposes the amendment of the previously
approved R & R Residential Care Facility. The proposal, as
now drafted, eliminates the child daycare facility on the
west corner of the project. In place of the child care
facility is proposed a two-story health fitness center.
The phasing plan for this proposal is now changed to provide
for the health fitness center to be Phase I and the
residential care facility to be Phase II. The health
fitness facility is projected for a completion date within
three to five months of final development plan and plat
approval.
•awo4 bu!sanu ao lelldso4 e
ui aaeo leuollnl!1su! Buia!nba.i lou ;o lualxa a43 of al!qow
A11uopuadapu! laA lnq sa!1!I!ge pue awoou! '@Be Aq pa1!w!l
slenp!A!pu! aso43 ao; Bu!sno4 papaau a43 saa1;0 A;!I!0e;
a41 •pano.idde Alsno!Aaad se wao; awes ayl ui veld s!yl
ui poluasaada.i s! A;!I!oe1 aaeo Ie!luap!saa pasodoad a41
Al I -1 10`d3 38b'0 111 I iN30 I S3d
•aolOaalp 194; pue Aaelaaoas aAllealslulwpe
ue 'saolonalsul pasu19011 ao/pue pa!;!laa0 aaa43
Bu!pnloui slenp!Alpu! aA!1 as!adwoo Ileys ;;els Al!I!oe;
1941 •gl, ;o 96e ayl Molaq uaapl!yo 09 ;o wnwlxew a snld
aw!1 auo Aue le sllnpe ot, ;o wnw!xew a 43!M oo` aq (legs
peol luapn;s a41 •Rl!l!oe; aaeo le!luap!saa a4; a01 papa;;o
aq II!m wea6oad Adeaayl Ie0!sA4d a 'sweaBoad leuollona;su!
1941 01 u013!ppe uI •aouep pue so!goaae 'slae Ie!l.iew
's013seuwA6 'Buls10aaxa u! swea6oad Ieuo!lonalsui sllnpe
pue uaapl!yo of spa;;o A41I!oe1 ssaul!; 431eay pasodoad aq
3A I103f eo Al I-iI Ob'3 SS3N1I3 1-11-71'd3H
•s901Aaas aaeo 4llea4 pue ssau;!;
uewnq Ienp!A!puI ao; paau ayl II!;In; II!m luawdolanap 1941
•Al!I!oe; aaeo Ie!;uap!saa a pue Al!I!0e; ssoul!; 411e@4
e Bu!s!adwoo luawdolanap pall0alu00 'pa!;!un ;o asodand 1943
ao; lo!a1s!p and aibu!s a aapun Alaadoad ;o slaoaed pauoz
AllenplA!pu! 10 saa0e 99.1• alep!losuoo of pasodoad s! 11
3A 1103f'90 7b'83N30
•saolAaaS uewnH ;o luawlaedaa
041 10 0311;0 aaeo Waal 6uo-1 a43 Aq Ienoadde a43 of ;oafgns
s! II ase4d ;o uo!;0nalsuo0 a41 •I 9se4d 10 uo!laldwoo
aalle s41u0w uanas of aA!1 u!yl!m uo!laidwoo ao; paloofoad
sI II aseyd mOu sI L10 Nm AI!I!0e; aaeo Iel;uap!saa 1941
•a;!s uo 0111ea1 0I014aA 10 aal0eaey0 u1 a6ue40 a o; onp
pasodoad s! s!y1 •GA!ap AeM-auo panoadde leu!6!ao ay; ;o
nail u! an!ap Aem-oml a se pasodoad s! peo�I lIGAas008 6u!0e;
A11I!3e; aaeo le!luap!saa a4j ;e Raja 6u!Naed aul of ssa00d
(panulluoo) b *ON A31
NOISIAicens
6961 I!add
r