Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4985-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4985-C NAME: Mid-America Center -- Short -Form POD - Revocation LOCATION: North side of West Roosevelt Road, between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER: Emma Jean Rogers AREA: 1.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Day Care and Residential PROPOSED USE: Church and Residential A. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 1988, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,460 rezoning this property from R-4 and R-5 to PRD to allow a residential and child care facility. On January 16, 1990, the Board passed Ordinance No. 15,801 revising the PRD to eliminate the residential care facility part of the project and replaced it with an additional day care facility. On June 20, 1995, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 16,919 which rezoned the property from PRD to POD. The uses which were permitted in and on the POD site were to be limited to the two-family dwelling which is located at 2407 S. Battery Street and the day care facility which was authorized by Ordinance No. 15,801, plus the following uses from the 0-1 and C-2 list of ;permitted uses: church; clinic (medical,, dental, or optical); community welfare or health center; day nursery or day care center; lodge or fraternal organization; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school, kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (business); school (public or denominational); studio (art, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic studio); barber and beauty shop; and, eating place, limited to the ground floor of the existing building, with a maximum of 800 square feet, to be a sit- down facility without drive-in or drive-thru service and FILE NO.: Z -4985-C (Cont.) with -carryout permitted, but with no delivery service allowed. The approved site plan which included building and parking layouts is attached. To this date, the property has never completely developed and the building is currently vacant. There is some evidence of recent fire damage to the building. The parking lot within the southern portion of the property was never constructed. B. PROPOSAL: The applicant, Emma Jean Rogers, submitted a letter to staff on April 28, 1999, requesting that the existing POD be revoked and the property revert to its original R-4 and R-5 zoning. Mrs. Rogers is planning to sell a portion of r the property to Gospel Temple Baptist Church for development of a church facility (Item 20.1 on this agenda) . If approved, Lots 2, 4-10, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition, Lot 10 and the South 1­� of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition would revert to R-4 zoning. Lots 11 and 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition would revert to R-5 zoning. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the POD be revoked; that Ordinance No. 16,919 be repealed and that the property be returned to R-4 Two -Family district and R-5 Urban Residence district as noted in paragraph B. of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 27, 1999) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 2 INFORMATION RELATIVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OIF DIRECTORS MEETING ON JULY 6, 1999 ITEM NO.# Z -3792-B Sysco Foods — Revised PD -I 5800 Frozen Road Planning Staff Recommends: Approval Planning Commission Recommends: Approval Right -of -Way Issues: None Vote: 8 Ayes ITEM NO.# Z -5223-B Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: 0 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention Carter — Short -Form POD 1400 S. Bishop Street Approval Yes roval Vote: 8 Ayes 0 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention ITEM NO.# Z-6671 Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: Grubbs — Short -Form PD -I South side of Baseline Road, 1,000 feet east of Interstate 430 Approval Yes roval Vote: 8 Ayes 0 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention INFORMATION RELATIVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OIF DIRECTORS MEETING ON JULY 6, 1999 ITEM NO.# Z-6669 Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: L. T. Care Ministries — Short -Form POD 2615 West 15th Street Yes Vote: 8 Ayes 0 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention roval roval ITEM NO.# Z -5282-A Pinnacle Bank — Short -Form PD -O Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and North Rodney Parham Roads Planning Staff Recommends: Approval Planning Commission Recommends: Approval Right -of -Way Issues: Yes Vote: 6 Ayes 2 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention ITEM NO.# Z -5505-H Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: Bryant — Revised PCD Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane Yes roval roval Vote: 7 Ayes 0 Noes 3 Absent 1 Abstention INFORMATION RELATIVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ON JULY 6, 1999 ITEM NO.# Z -4985-C Mid-America Center — Short -Form POD - Revocation North side of West Roosevelt Road, between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets Planning Staff Recommends: Approval Planning Commission Recommends: Approval Right -of -Way Issues: None Vote: 8 Ayes 0 Noes 3 Absent 0 Abstention ITEM NO.# Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: Vote: Ayes Noes Absent Abstention ITEM NO.# Planning Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: Right -of -Way Issues: Vote: Ayes Noes Absent Abstention May 27, 1999 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z -4985-C NAME: Mid-America Center -- Short -Form POD - Revocation LOCATION: North side of West Roosevelt Road, between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER: Emma Jean Rogers AREA: 1.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: Day Care and Residential PROPOSED USE: Church and Residential A. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 1988, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,460 rezoning this property from R-4 and R-5 to PRD to allow a residential and child care facility. On January 16, 1990, the Board passed Ordinance No. 15,801 revising the PRD to eliminate the residential care facility part of the project and replaced it with an additional day care facility. On June 20, 1995, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 16,919 which rezoned the property from PRD to POD. The uses which were permitted in and on the POD site were to be limited to the two-family dwelling which is located at 2407 S. Battery Street and the day care facility which was authorized by Ordinance No. 15,801, plus the following uses from the 0-1 and C-2 list of permitted uses: church; clinic (medical, dental, or optical); community welfare or health center; day nursery or day care center; lodge or fraternal organization; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school, kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (business); school (public or denominational); studio (art, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic studio); barber and beauty shop; and, eating place, limited to the ground floor of the existing building, with a maximum of 800 square feet, to be a sit- down facility without drive-in or drive-thru service and May 27, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C with carryout permitted, but with no delivery service allowed. The approved site plan which included building and parking layouts is attached. To this date, the property has never completely developed and the building is currently vacant. There is some evidence of recent fire damage to the building. The parking lot within the southern portion of the property was never constructed. B. PROPOSAL: The applicant, Emma Jean Rogers, submitted a letter to staff on April 28, 1999, requesting that the existing POD be revoked and the property revert to its original R-4 and R-5 zoning. Mrs. Rogers is planning to sell a portion of the property to Gospel Temple Baptist Church for development of a church facility (Item 20.1 on this agenda) . If approved, Lots 2, 4-10, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition, Lot 10 and the South 1 -fa of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition would revert to R-4 zoning. Lots 11 and 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition would revert to R-5 zoning. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the POD be revoked; that Ordinance No. 16,919 be repealed and that the property be returned to R-4 Two -Family district and R-5 Urban Residence district as noted in paragraph B. of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The staff presented a positive recommendation application, as there were no further issues There were no objectors to this matter. (MAY 27, 1999) on this for resolution. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 2 FILE NO.: Z-4 85-c NAME: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: FRED RODGERS Samuel L. Davis 2407 S. Battery St. S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. Little Rock, AR 72206 5301 West 8th Street 374-9844 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 1.88 ACRES UUMBER OE -LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZQ ING: PRD PROPOSED SES: Day Care and Residential P ING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PRrPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order to make substantive changes to the originally approved master site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings on the site. The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors Qn April 19, 1988, in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St. containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200.square feet. The existing 2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square foot building was to be a child care center. Subsequent to that approval, the residential care use was implemented in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.; however, the two new buildings were not built. Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care. Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by 20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry/drop-off FILE Z-4 85-C (Con point for the child care facility, and to Provide parking and an access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990. Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included in the PRE) site, and the uses are proposed to change. An additional residential lot which faces Battery St, is to be included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential structure. It is to be used for offices for the facility on one side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor, but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain childcare space on the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on the second. The applicant states that a residential care facility is one which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24-hour basis, a place of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live. This use includes providing a place for daily activities for residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The facility, thea, will include lounge and living areas, a central dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities, laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed. The child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 112 years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12, plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will include a multi-purpose area, for activities, dining, and sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets foradults and children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office. The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire site is to be fenced for security purposes. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board Of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to: 1y include additional land area in the PRD site and amend the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the K FILE O.: Z-4 5-C(Cont.) second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its 2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first floor and residential care on the second floor. The second floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment. Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop-off/pick- up drive for the child care facility and parking for residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain link fencing for security purposes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONa: The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide residential lot currently zoned R-4. On the 1.66 acre site is a single 2 -story, 10,640 square foot facility presently being used for child care on the first floor only. The second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The 50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it: All surrounding property is zoned R-4. There is an elementary school directly to the west of the site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit, engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater detention. Water Works reports no objections. Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between the two existing buildings in the abandoned right-of-way, but in which the easements were retained) lies over an existing 6" sewer main. The sewer main will have to be relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the building will not be permitted to occupy the alley easement. Site Plan review reports that a 6' high opaque wood fence with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area from the residential property to the north. An upgrade in non --conforming landscape area will be required equal to the amount of the expansion. Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed, will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new building alongside an existing structure will be in violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be 3 FILE N Z-4 8 -(Cont.) remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as providing exterior fire separation and protection of both existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall construction in several locations; and installation of a fire sprinkling system. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing power line in the alley. They report that an easement must be provided; however, since the easement was retained when the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still in existence. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as submitted. The Fire Department will require that the 12,foot wide drive on the north side of the existing daycare building, extending to the north side of the new addition, be increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire equipment. Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural'supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area and the remodeled residence from the residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade in non -conforming landscaping will be required equal to the amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be required to comply with the landscaping ordinance. Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends single-family use for this site. Due to the location next to an elementary school and the visibility problems along Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however, the use is a residential housing situation and child and adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause significant adverse effects. D. IS.S.UES/LEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the requirement is 0.5 spaces/sleeping accommodation. The applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents. This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there are two apartments provided. These require an additional 2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of 1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150 children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is 4 FILE NO.: Z -4985-C (Cont.) required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66; 86 spaces are provided. The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering space must be provided on-site for vehicles to park, back, and then to enter Battery St. driving forward. The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns. This division reports that the applicant proceeded to construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permit, and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement. The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first, seek the abandonment of the utility easement; relocating any needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the foundation for the proposed building. E. .ANALYSIS: The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective. The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs of relocating the utility lines, as required. He has stated that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant: 1) being successful in his application to abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned; and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping, and other comments noted above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: - (AUGUST 18, 1994) Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a plan without fully realizing what will be required by the 5 FILE Z -4 985-C (Cont.) Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon the utility easement in the alley, would do what is necessary to relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes approving the construction. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: Subsequent to the September 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing, but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors, staff realized that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of all property owners within 200 feet and that the owner had been notified of the proposed action as required by the Commission Bylaws. It was confirmed with the applicant that, indeed, the required supplemental notification had not been accomplished. Therefore, the previous action by the Commission was taken without the applicant conforming to the instructions and Bylaw requirements, and the item must be heard at a public hearing, after proper notification, again. PLANNIUG COMMIS ION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had not complied with either the Commission Bylaw requirements concerning having a licensed abstractor provide a certified list of property owners within 200 feet of the site, nor the Bylaw requirement that all property owners within 200 feet be notified of the meeting. Staff reported that the list of property owners presented to staff was only a computer print-out from the Pulaski County Tax Assessor's office of residential property owners within the 2400 -block of S. Wolfe St. and S. Battery St., and that this list did not include, as a property owner, the Little Rock School District which owns the block across S. Battery St. from the Mid-America Center site, and the list does not include property owners on the south side 6 FILE NO.: Z -4985-C _Mont.) of W. Roosevelt Rd. and the north side of W. 24th. St. who are within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing to allow the applicant to correct the notification deficiencies. The recommendation for deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had met all the requirements for notification of property owners within 200 feet of the property, and that there are no remaining unresolved issues. Staff recommended approval of the PRD, subject to: resolution of the utility easement and the Building Code issues. Staff reported, though, that a petition, signed by several neighbors, and a letter from a neighbor had been delivered to staff, objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, the applicant, was present, but indicated that he would rather hear the comments of the opponents prior to his making his presentation. Mr. A. C. Mitchell, indicating that he was representing some of the neighbors who were unable to be present at the Commission meeting, and who had signed the petition which had been delivered to staff, urged the Commission to oppose the rezoning. He related that the neighbors are concerned about the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise, and the presence of activities associated with the proposed 24-hour residential care aspect. Mr. John Lewellen said that neighbors to the applicant's Center had called him expressing their opposition to it. He said that there is strong concern about the increased number of clients who will be served by the applicant's operation, and that there is concern that property values will be negatively, affected by approval of the added use for the PRD. He said that there will be an increase in vehicle traffic, and that access to Roosevelt Rd. will be made more difficult. He stated that the proposed activity is no more than "just another boarding house", to serve the homeless. This will commingle homeless people with children in the daycare facility, and this, he maintained, could cause problems. Mr. Rodgers explained that he currently has a daycare facility which serves 110 children, and that he wants to add a residential care facility for older children and young adults. He explained that the building is a large building, and that only the first floor is being utilized by the daycare facility; that there is over 6,000 square feet on the second floor of the building which is not being used, and could serve the residential care use which he proposes. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4985-C (Can Commissioner Daniel asked Mr. Rodgers for information on the ages of clients being served and which would be served with the additional use. Mr. Rodgers said that he proposed that the upstairs area be used for residential care of 3 year old children to 17 year old youths; that the residential care be on an emergency basis, when referred by other agencies or when homeless young people came to the facility in need of a place to stay, and until the Social Service Agency could evaluate the clients and place them in appropriate care facilities. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Rodgers to explain how long clients would live in the facility. Mr. Rodgers replied that the State would determine the length of stay for the child; that the State could determine that the child should stay in the facility for a year or longer., Chairperson Chachere asked if the clients are criminals, or if they are children who are referred by social service agencies who are being removed from homes by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he does not house criminal; that, indeed, the State refers clients for temporary housing until they are evaluated, but the facility could also be used to house the client on a more permanent basis if the State refers the client to their facility. He added, though, that, a child could be accepted for care if they came in off the street. Commissioner Adcock asked for an explanation of the supervision which is proposed for the clients. Mr. Rodgers said that the State sets the standards for supervision, and the number of staff persons would be determined by the State. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rodgers if he would restrict access by clients to only those referred by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would not want to do restrict access; that sometimes children who are on the street need a place to stay, and the facility needs the flexibility to take them in on an emergency basis. Commissioner Walker said that he wanted assurance that the facility is not a boarding house, but is and remains the type facility which the applicant proposes. He asked that the conditions be placed on the approval of the PRD that the State, County, or some appropriate governmental agency evaluate the clients within 24 hours of their becoming clients. Mr. Rodgers concurred with this condition. 8 FILE NO.: Z-49$ -C (Cont.) Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the aspect of the application concerning 24-hour care. Mr. Rodgers explained that he was seeking approval for the child care facility to keep children on a 24-hour basis. He said that some parents work at night, and the child daycare does not provide them with the child care they need. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Rodgers to confirm that: 1) he currently has a traditional daycare facility which serves children from about 3 years of age to 12 or 13 years of age; 2) he will submit to the State -for licensing for a residential care facility which is planned to serve children ranging in age from approximately 3 years old to 17 years old; 3) the two uses are located in the same building, but they are or would be on separate floors and have different entrances; 4) the children to be served by the residential care facility are housed on an emergency and temporary basis pending their evaluation by the State and placement in foster or other care, as determined by the State; and 5) any children who come to the facility on their own, not referred by the State or other agency, would be evaluated by the State within 24 hours of their arrival at the Center, and placed according to the requirements of the State. Mr. Rodgers confirmed this characterization of his application, as amended. Mr. Lewellen again expressed concern that many of the clients to be served would be coming from the criminal justice system, and that this element is inappropriate to the established residential neighborhood. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PRD, and the motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0. nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the request, indicating that the item had been referred again to the Commission by the Board of Directors. Staff indicated that the applicant had amended his request at the Board of Directors hearing, this being.after the Commission had approved the uses to be permitted in the PRD, and had, in the amendment, substituted some office and commercial uses. This substitution of uses had followed a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors had objected to the emergency care facility for "at risk" and homeless young people, and had suggested the neighborhood office and commercial type uses be substituted. Staff reported that the applicant, Mr. Rodgers, had proposed a list of possible uses taken from the 0-1 and C-1 list of uses, and that staff had edited this list to include: church; clinic (medical, dental, or optical); community welfare or health center, convent or monastery; day nursery or day care center; 9 FILE NO_: Z -4985-C (C -Ont.) lodge or fraternal organization; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school, kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (business); school (public or denominational); studio (art, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic studio); barber and beauty shop; eating place, limited to ground floor or existing buildings, with a maximum of 800 square feet, sit down facility without drive-in or drive-thru, with carry out permitted but no delivery service permitted. Staff reported that the applicant had requested approval of both the originally approved PRD uses (child day care and residential care of young persons between the ages of 3 and 17), as well as approval of the cited alternative uses. Staff recommended the reaffirmation of the original Commission action for the child day care and youth residential care, and a recommendation of approval of the list of alternative uses. Staff reported that staff had contacted by phone both Senator Bill Walker and Mr. John Lewellen, to relay to them the applicant's request and the date of the re -hearing before the Commission. Staff related that both had expressed concern about the uses proposed, and that Mr. Lewellen had said that he would contact neighbors and urge them to be present for the Commission hearing. (It was noted that there was no one present at the hearing to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment.) Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, representing the applicant, said that he needed approval of the request so that he could go back to the Board for their action on his request. A motion was made and seconded to reaffirm the Commission's action of January 10, 1995 to permit the child day care facility and youth residential care facility, plus to permit the amendment of the list of office and commercial uses cited. The recommendation for approval passed with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 10 1. Meeting Date: February 7, 1995 2. Case No.: Z -4085-C 3. Recruest: Establish MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD 4. Location: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Battery St. and S. Wolfe St. 5. owner/Applicant: Fred Rodgers and Cedrick Rodgers 6. Existing Status: There are existing buildings on the site. A portion of the site is zoned PRD. The request involves adding a lot which is zoned R-4 to the PRD, and amending the allowable uses of the PRD. 7. Proposed Use: Day Care and Residential Care facility; offices and staff residential uses. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right-of-wav Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. obiectoxs: John Lewellen; A. C. Mitchell 14. Neighborhood Contact Person/others: Diane Davis, South End Neighborhood Association; Delbra Stewart, Downtown. Neighborhood Association 15. 'Neighborhood Plan: Central City (8) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C NAME: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER: FRED RODGERS 2407 S. Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72206 374-9844 AREA: 1.88 ACRES ENGINEER: Samuel L. Davis S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. 5301 West 8th. Street Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Day Care and Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order to make substantive changes to the originally approved master site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings on the site. The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors on April 19, 1988, in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St. containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200 square feet. The existing 2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square foot building was to be a child care center. Subsequent to that approval, the residential care use was implemented in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.; however, the two new buildings were not built. Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care. Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by FILE NO.: Z-4085-C(Cont.) 20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry/drop-off point for the child care facility, and to provide parking -and an access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990. Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included in the PRD site, and the uses are proposed to change. An additional residential lot which faces Battery St. is to be included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential structure. It is to be used for offices for the facility on one side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor, but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain child care space on the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on the second. The applicant states that a residential care facility is one which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24-hour basis, a place of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live. This use includes providing a place for daily activities for residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The facility, then, will include lounge and living areas, a central dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities, laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed. The -child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 1/2 years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12, plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will include a multi-purpose area for activities, dining, and sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets for adults and children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office. The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire site is to be fenced for security purposes. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to: 1) include additional land area in the PRD site and amend the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex 2 FILE NO.: 2-4085-C Cont. is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its 2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first floor and residential care on the second floor. The second floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment. Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop-off/pick- up drive for the child care facility and parking for residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain link fencing for security purposes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide residential lot currently zoned R-4. On the 1.66 acre site is a single 2 -story, 10,640 square foot facility presently being used for child care on the first floor only. The second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The 50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it. All surrounding property is zoned R-4. There is an elementary school directly to the west of the site. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit,_ engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater detention. Water Works reports no objections. Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between the two existing buildings in the abandoned right-of-way, but in which the easements were retained) lies over an existing 6" sewer main. The sewer main will have to be relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the building will not be permitted to occupy the alley easement. Site Plan review reports that a 6' high opaque wood fence with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area from the residential property to the north. An upgrade in non -conforming landscape area will be required equal to the amount of the expansion. Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed, will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new building alongside an existing structure will be in 3 FILE NO • Z -4085-C !Cont.? violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as providing exterior fire separation and protection of both existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall construction in several locations; and installation of a fire sprinkling system. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing power line in the alley. They report that an easement must be provided; however, since the easement was retained when the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still in existence. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as submitted. The Fire Department will require that the 12 foot wide drive on the north side of the existing daycare building, extending to the north side of the new addition, be increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire equipment. Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area and the remodeled residence from the residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade in non -conforming landscaping will be required equal. to the amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be required to comply with the landscaping ordinance. Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends single-family use for this site. Due to the location next to an elementary school and the visibility problems along Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however, the use is a residential housing situation and child and adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause significant adverse effects. D. ISSUES LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIN: Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the requirement is 0.5 spaces/sleeping accommodation. The applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents. This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there are two apartments provided. These require an additional 2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of 1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150 children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is 4 FILE NO.-: Z-4085-C(Cont.) required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66; 86 spaces are provided. The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering space must be provided on-site for vehicles to park, back, and then to enter Battery St. driving forward. The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns. This division reports that the applicant proceeded to construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permit, and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement. The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first, seek the abandonment of the utility easement, relocating any needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the foundation for the proposed building. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective. The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs of relocating the utility lines, as required.. He has stated that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant: 1) being successful in his application to abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned; and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping, and other comments noted above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994) Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a plan without fully realizing what will be required by the 5 FILE NO.: Z -4085-C (Cont.) Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon the utility easement in the alley, would do what is -necessary to relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes approving the construction. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE Subsequent to the September 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing, but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors, staff realized that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of all property owners within 200 feet and that the owner had been notified of the proposed action as required by the Commission Bylaws. It was confirmed with the applicant that, indeed, the required supplemental notification had not been accomplished. Therefore, the previous action by the Commission was taken without the applicant conforming to the instructions and Bylaw requirements, and the item must be heard at a public hearing, after proper notification, again. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had not complied with either the Commission Bylaw requirements concerning having a licensed abstractor provide a certified list of property owners within 200 feet of the site, nor the Bylaw requirement that all property owners within 200 feet be notified of the meeting. Staff reported that the list of property owners presented to staff was only a computer print-out from the Pulaski County Tax Assessor's office of residential property owners within the 2400 -block of S. Wolfe St. and S. Battery St., and that this list did not include, as a property owner, the Little Rock School District which owns the block across S. Battery St. from the Mid-America Center site, and the list does not include property owners on the south side 2 FILE NO.: Z -4085 - of W. Roosevelt Rd. and the north side of W. 24th. St. who are within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing to allow the applicant to correct the notification deficiencies. The recommendation for deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had met all the requirements for notification of property owners within 200 feet of the property, and that there are no remaining unresolved issues. Staff recommended approval of the PRD, subject to: resolution of the utility easement and the Building Code issues. Staff reported, though, that a petition, signed by several neighbors, and a letter from a neighbor had been delivered to staff, objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, the applicant, was present, but indicated that he would rather hear the comments of the opponents prior to his making his presentation. Mr. A. C. Mitchell, indicating that he was representing some of the neighbors who were unable to be present at the Commission meeting, and who had signed the petition which had been delivered to staff, urged the Commission to oppose the rezoning. He related that the neighbors are concerned about the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise, and the presence of activities associated with the proposed 24-hour residential care aspect. Mr. John Lewellen said that neighbors to the applicant's Center had called him expressing their opposition to it. He said that there is strong concern about the increased number of clients who will be served by the applicant's operation, and that there is concern that property values will be negatively affected by approval of the added use for the PRD. He said that there will be an increase in vehicle traffic, and that access to Roosevelt Rd. will be made more difficult. He stated that the proposed activity is no more than "just another boarding house", to serve the homeless. This will commingle homeless people with children in the daycare facility, and this, he maintained, could cause problems. Mr. Rodgers explained that he currently has a daycare facility which serves 110 children, and that he wants to add a residential care facility for older children and young adults. He explained that the building is a large building, and that only the first floor is being utilized by the daycare facility; that there is over 6,000 square feet on the second floor of the building which is not being used, and could serve the residential care use which he proposes. 7 FILL- NO.: Z -4085-C (Cont. Commissioner Daniel asked Mr. Rodgers for information on the ages of clients being served and which would be served with the additional use. Mr. Rodgers said that he proposed that the upstairs area be used for residential care of 3 year old children to 17 year old youths; that the residential care be on an emergency basis, when referred by other agencies or when homeless young people came to the facility in need of a place to stay, and until the Social Service Agency could evaluate the clients and place them in appropriate care facilities. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Rodgers to explain how long clients would live in the facility. Mr. Rodgers replied that the State would determine the length of stay for the child; that the State could determine that the child should stay in the facility for a year or longer. Chairperson Chachere asked if the clients are criminals, or if they are children who are referred by social service agencies who are being removed from homes by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he does not house criminal; that, indeed, the State refers clients for temporary housing until they are evaluated, but the facility could also be used to house the client on a more permanent basis if the State refers the client to their facility. He added, though, that, a child could be accepted for care if they came in off the street. Commissioner Adcock asked for an explanation of the supervision which is proposed for the clients. Mr. Rodgers said that the State sets the standards for supervision, and the number of staff persons would be determined by the State. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rodgers if he would restrict access by clients to only those referred by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would not want to do restrict access; that sometimes children who are on the street need a place to stay, and the facility needs the flexibility to take them in on an emergency basis. Commissioner Walker said that he wanted assurance that the facility is not a boarding house, but is and remains the type facility which the applicant proposes. He asked that the conditions be placed on the approval of the PRD that the State, County, or some appropriate governmental agency evaluate the clients within 24 hours of their becoming clients. Mr. Rodgers concurred with this condition. 8 FILE NO.: Z -4085-C (Cont.) Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the aspect of the application concerning 24-hour care. Mr. Rodgers explained that he was seeking approval for the child care facility to keep children on a 24-hour basis. He said that some parents work at night, and the child daycare does not provide them with the child care they need. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Rodgers to confirm that: 1) he currently has a traditional daycare facility which serves children from about 3 years of age to 12 or 13 years of age; 2) he will submit to the State for licensing for a residential care facility which is planned to serve children ranging in age from approximately 3 years old to 17 years old; 3) the two uses are located in the same building, but they are or would be on separate floors and have different entrances; 4) the children to be served by the residential care facility are housed on an emergency and temporary basis pending their evaluation by the State and placement in foster or other care, as determined by the State; and 5) any children who come to the facility on their own, not referred by the State or other agency, would be evaluated by the State within 24 hours of their arrival at the Center, and placed according to the requirements of the State. Mr. Rodgers confirmed this characterization of his application, as amended. Mr. Lewellen again expressed concern that many of the clients to be served would be coming from the criminal justice system, and that this element is inappropriate to the established residential neighborhood. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PRD, and the motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. Q ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ENTITLED MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD (Z -4085-C), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF W. ROOSEVELT ROAD, BETWEEN S. BATTERY STREET AND S. WOLFE STREET, IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 15,460 AND 15,801 AND CHAPTER 36, SECTION 36-176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 15,460 which established the R&R RESIDENTIAL CARE SHORT -FORM POD (Z-4085) and Ordinance No. 15,801, which established MERCY DAY CARE CENTER REVISED SHORT -FORM PRD (Z -4085-B), be amended to provide for the modification of the Districts previously established and hereafter to be described as: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD (Z -4085-C), located on the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Battery Street and S. Wolfe Street. SECTION 2. That the zone classification of the following described property be changed from PRD and R-4 to PRD, said property including the tract established as R&R RESIDENTIAL CARE SHORT -FORM PRD (Z-4085) AND MERCY DAY CARE REVISED SHORT -FORM PRD (Z -4085-B), plus an abutting lot to the west. A parcel of land in Section 9, T -1-N, R -12-W, Little Rock, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Lot 2 and Lots 4 thru 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; AND, Lot 10 and the South 1/2 of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; AND, the West 1/2 of a 20 foot Alley (now closed) lying East of and adjacent to Lots 4, 5, and 6 in said Block 9, McCarthy's Addition; AND, the East 1/2 of a 20 foot alley (now closed) lying west of and adjacent to Lots 7 thru 12 in said Block 9, McCarthy's Addition; AND, the East 1/2 of a 16 foot alley (now closed) lying West of andadjacentto Lot 10 and the South 1/2 of Lot 11 in said Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition; said tract containing 1.89 acres, more or less. SECTION 3. That the revised Site Development Plan and Plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 4. That the maintenance of the zoning classification, the revised plan for MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD is conditioned upon obtaining final plat approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36-81 and 36-82 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and it is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect the designated change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 6. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect and be in full force upon final approval of the plan. PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor