Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4985-E Staff AnalysisOctober 4, 2001 ITEM NO.: 2.1 NAME: Rodgers Short -Form PCD LOCATION: 2408 Wolfe Street nFUFr.nDV-u Emma Rodgers 717 Bradburn Road No. Little Rock, AR AREA: .64± acre ZONING: FILE NO.: Z -4985-E ENGINEER - Michael Hahn, Architect P. O. Box 1285 72117 Little Rock, AR 72203 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Current: R-4 and R-5 Proposed: PCD ALLOWED USES: Residential PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development including duplex, daycare and selected 0-1 and C-2 uses. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. 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 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E 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 with carryout permitted, but with no delivery service allowed. To this date, the property has never completely developed and most of the building is currently vacant. The parking lot within the southern portion of the property was never constructed. 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 sold a portion of the property to Gospel Temple Baptist Church for development of a church facility. Lots 2, 4-10, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition, Lot 10 and the South '-� of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition reverted to R-4 zoning. Lots 11 and 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition reverted to R-5 zoning. On July 6, 1999, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,045 which revoked the three previous PZD ordinances. On May 27, 1999, the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use permit for a church to be constructed on the southern portion of the site. That church has been constructed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting that the variety of 0-1 and C-2 uses authorized under the 1995 Planned Development he reinstated. Those uses are outlined in the previous paragraph. Development consists of the one, large building that stretches from Wolfe Street to Battery Street, 24 on-site parking spaces and rebuilding a portion of the building that was damaged by a tornado. The applicant proposes to use the 49 parking spaces on the adjacent church site during non -church hours. E October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: Z -4985-E The site is occupied by a large, 18,038 square foot building. Portions of the building are two -stories in height. The portion nearest Battery Street is one-story in height. A portion of the structure was damaged in a tornado and is proposed to be rebuilt. A paved but otherwise unimproved parking area is located north of the building. A completely unimproved parking area is south of the building. The southern portion of the block has been recently developed as a new church. Large areas of single family and two family residences extend north, east and south of this property. An elementary school is located, west of the site, across Battery Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners of property within 200 feet of the site were to have been notified by the applicant. Staff notified all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown, Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. D. ENGINEERING COI-MENTS : PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec. 29-186(e). 6. A Grading Permit will be required per Sec. 29-186(c) and (d) . E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main located on site. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. See Attached Map. Entergy: No Comments. ARKLA: No Comments. 3 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger or additional meters are needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Issues_ CATA: Project site is located on bus routes #11 and 14 and may affect bus radius, turnout and route. Please inform CATA of construction start and end dates. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: G Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a day care center. The property is currently zoned R-4 Two -Family and R-5 Urban Residence. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape Issues: A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the expansion proposed (14%) will be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2001) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee of the need for more information on hours of operation, dumpster location, signage and the size of the daycare operation. Public Works and Landscape Comments were noted. Staff noted no agreement to allow use of the church parking lot had been submitted. 4 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Staff was asked to meet with the applicant. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the Commission. H. ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff did meet with the applicant. Some issues were resolved. The day care center use was much more clearly defined. The proposed day care will have a maximum of 100 children and 10 employees. Hours of operation for the day care are 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. One, 8 feet by 12 feet ground mounted sign will be placed on the east side of tfie property. One, 3 feet by 14 feet wall sign will be mounted on the west fagade, facing Battery Street. No additional fencing will be installed. Existing, 6 feet tall wood privacy fencing on the north and south perimeters will remain. The parking lot south of the building will be paved. There will be no outside lighting other than lighting at the entry doors. Authorization to use the church parking lot has not yet been received. No further details on any of the other proposed uses have been submitted. Staff is not supportive of the application, as filed. In our opinion, the multiple office and commercial uses proposed from the 0-1 and 0-2 zoning districts are not appropriate for this location. The property is located in the heart of a primarily single-family residential neighborhood. This neighborhood extends both north and south of Roosevelt Road, in all directions for several blocks around the site. The neighborhood is, at best, fragile; a situation compounded by the recent tornado that damaged or destroyed so much of the neighborhood's residential housing stock. Staff is concerned that introducing the variety of non-residential uses proposed by the applicant into this area would further exacerbate the situation by negatively impacting the livability of adjacent residential properties. Staff does believe that allowing a neighborhood oriented institutional use, such as the day care center would be appropriate. The two blocks on the north side of Roosevelt, from Wolfe to Summit have developed as a neighborhood "institutional node." An elementary school 5 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E occupies one block while a new church has been built on the southern half of the subject block. Allowing a day care center to be located in this "node" seems appropriate. It is staff's opinion that the neighborhood would be better served by limiting the use to the day care; not by allowing the variety of office and commercial uses proposed by the applicant. Staff would recommend that the application be amended to a conditional use permit to allow only the day care center operation, as proposed. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 4, 2001) This item was presented in conjunction with Item No. 2, LU01-08- 02; a Land Use Plan Amendment. Brian Minyard, of the Planning Staff presented the proposed Plan Amendment. The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the Commission that it appeared that the required notices for the rezoning had been sent later than the required 15 days. The post -mark on the certified mail receipts was unclear but it appeared that the notices were sent no earlier than 14 days and possibly be late as 5 days prior to the meeting. Cedric Rodgers, representing the application, stated he thought the notices were sent September 24, 2001, 10 days prior to the meeting. The Commission studied the mail receipts and reached a consensus that the notices had been sent late. Staff commented that the objector who was present had stated that, although she lives next door, she did not received any notice from the applicant. She had received staff's notice. 6 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2.1 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Mr. Rodgers was advised to renotify, in a timely manner. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 15, 2001 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. 7 October 4, 2001 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: LU01-08-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Central City Planning District Location: 2408 Wolfe St. Request: Single Family to Commercial Source: Emma Rogers PROPOSAL / REQUEST: J Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from Single Family to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to use the property for day care and selected 0-1 and C-2 uses. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is occupied by a vacant building and is currently zoned R-4 Two Family and R-5 Urban Residence and is approximately .94+ acres in size. All of the surrounding property is zoned R-4 Two Family. A church occupies the neighboring property to the south while the property to the west is the campus of the Mitchell Elementary School. The remainder of the surrounding property is developed with housing. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On January 4, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use at 2311 S. Spring Street about 1 mile East of the applicant's property. On June 15, 1999 a change was made from Single Family and Mixed Use to Public Institutional on Wright Avenue and Park Street about a 1-� mile Northwest of the property in question. On June 1, 1999 a change was made from Mining to Park/Open Space, Industrial, and Single Family at Arch Street and I- 30 about 1 mile Southeast of the area in question. October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU01-08-02 The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The surrounding property is all shown as Single Family except for the property to the west that is shown as Public Institutional. MASTER STREET PLAN: The Master Street Plan shows Roosevelt Road as a Principal Arterial. 24th Street, Battery Street, and Wolfe Street are shown as Standard Residential streets. There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be 4 affected by this amendment. PARKS: The 2001 Little Rock Park and Recreation Master Plan proposes an eight -block strategy of providing facilities within an eight block radius of all residential areas. The plan also states that playground facilities (such as the one at Mitchell Elementary) are included in the eight -block strategy. Cit Reco nized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property lies in the Central High School National Historic District. The historic district is intended to preserve the neighborhood surrounding the historic site. Any future development in this area would need to fit the design guidelines of the historic district. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide standards to preserve the area's unique architectural heritage. The guidelines are not intended to hinder the continued maintenance or repair of a structure, but are used primarily for projects that involve a new addition to a house or for design projects that may be seen from the street. Overall, the intension of design guidelines is for the preservation of a structure's architecture; guidelines 2 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont. FILE NO.: LU01-08-02 are viewed as broadly as possible in order to enable the property owner to maintain the property and retain architectural elements. Mitchell Elementary School is located across Battery Street from this application and the Gospel Temple Baptist Church lying immediately to the south. The neighboring public institutional uses are of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C-2 and 0-1 uses, as proposed, in the neighborhood would introduce the potential for a wide variety of uses near the elementary school. Some of the allowable uses such as daycare center, private, schools, and kindergartens would be compatible with the school across the street and fit the character of the neighborhood. Other allowable uses such as eating establishments, beauty shops, and Laundromats would not be compatible with the school across the street and would not fit the residential character of the neighborhood. Commercial uses across from a school on a residential street may cause traffic conflicts from both the loading and unloading of school students and the commercial traffic throughout the day. In addition, the residential streets serving the property would need to support a greater volume of traffic than the streets are designed to accommodate. The applicant's property sits in the middle of the block midway between Roosevelt Road to the south and W.24t' Street to the north. The applicant's property fronts on both Wolfe and Battery Streets. However, the frontage along Wolfe Street is wider than the frontage along Battery Street. Any conflicts of loading and unloading of students would occur on Battery Street. Regardless of which side of the applicant's property the loading and unloading of students takes place, the loading and unloading would take place in mid -block. Most of the neighborhood's commercial property sits at the intersection of Roosevelt Road and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. There is also vacant property zoned for commercial uses located west of Summit Street on Roosevelt Road. 3 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU01-08-02 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association, Central High Neighborhood Association, East of Broadway Neighborhood Association, Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, MLK Neighborhood Association, South End Neighborhood Association, South End Neighborhood Developers, and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association. this time staff has not received any comments from area residents or neighborhood associations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A change to Commercial would place a conflicting land use category inside a residential neighborhood in an area where there are available existing non-developed commercial areas. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E NAME: Rodgers Short -Form PCD LOCATION: 2408 Wolfe Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Emma Rodgers Michael Hahn, Architect 717 Bradburn Road P. O. Box 1285 No. Little Rock, AR 72117 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: .64± acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Current: R-4 and R-5 Proposed: PCD ALLOWED USES: Residential PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development including duplex, daycare and selected 0-1 and C-2 uses. VARIANCESNAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. 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 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E 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 ox 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 with carryout permitted, but with no delivery service allowed. To this date, the property has never completely developed and most of the building is currently vacant. The parking lot within the southern portion of the property was never constructed. 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 sold a portion of the property to Gospel Temple Baptist Church for development of a church facility. Lots 2, 4-10, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition, Lot 10 and the South 1-5 of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition reverted to R-4 zoning. Lots 11 and 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition reverted to R-5 zoning. On July 6, 1999, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,045 which revoked the three .previous PZD ordinances. On May 27, 1999, the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use permit for a church to be constructed on the southern portion of the site. That church has been constructed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting that the variety of 0-1 and C-2 uses authorized under the 1995 Planned Development be reinstated. Those uses are outlined in the previous paragraph. Development consists of the one, large building that stretches from Wolfe Street to Battery Street, 24 on-site parking spaces and rebuilding a portion of the building that was damaged by a tornado. The applicant proposes to use the 49 parking spaces on the adjacent church site during non -church hours. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a large, 18,038 square foot building. Portions of the building are two -stories in height. The portion nearest Battery Street is one-story in height. A portion of the structure was damaged in a FA FILE NO.: Z -4985-E tornado and is proposed to be rebuilt. A paved but otherwise unimproved parking area is located north of the building. A completely unimproved parking area is south of the building. The southern portion of the block has been recently developed as a new church. Large areas of single family and two family residences extend north, east and south of this property. An elementary school is located west of the site, across Battery Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners of property within 200 feet of the site were to have been notified by the applicant. Staff notified all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown, Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan .will be required per Sec. 29-186(e) . 6.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec. 29-186(c) and (d) . E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main located on site. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. See Attached Map. Entergy: No Comments. SLA: No Comments. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger or additional meters are needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Issues. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E CATA: Project site is located on bus routes #11 and 14 and may affect bus radius, turnout and route. Please inform CATA of construction- start and end dates. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a day care center. The property is currently zoned R-4 Two -Family and R-5 Urban Residence. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape Issues: A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the expansion proposed (14%) will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2001) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee of the need for more information on hours of operation, dumpster location, signage and the size of the daycare operation. Public Works and Landscape Comments were noted. Staff noted no agreement to allow use of the church parking lot had been submitted. Staff was asked to meet with the applicant. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the Commission. H. ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff did meet with the applicant. Some issues were resolved. The day care center use was much more clearly defined. The proposed day care will have a maximum of 100 children and 10 employees. Hours of operation for the day care are 6:00 4 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. One, 8 feet by 12 feet ground mounted sign will be placed on the east side of the property. One, 3 feet by 14 feet wall sign will be mounted on the west fagade, facing Battery Street. No additional fencing will be installed. Existing, 6 feet tall wood privacy fencing on the north and south perimeters will remain. The parking lot south of the building will be paved. There will be no outside lighting other than lighting at the entry doors. Authorization to use the church parking lot has not yet been received. No further details on any of the other proposed uses have been submitted. Staff is not supportive of the application, as filed. In our opinion, the multiple office and commercial uses proposed from the 0-1 and 0-2 zoning districts are not appropriate for this location. The property is located in the heart of a primarily single-family residential neighborhood. This neighborhood extends both north and south of Roosevelt Road, in all directions for several blocks around the site. The neighborhood is, at best, fragile; a situation compounded by the recent tornado that damaged or destroyed so much of the neighborhood's residential housing stock. Staff is concerned that introducing the variety of non-residential uses proposed by the applicant into this area would further exacerbate the situation by negatively impacting the livability of adjacent residential properties. Staff does believe that allowing a neighborhood oriented institutional use, such as the day care center would be appropriate. The two blocks on the north side of Roosevelt, from Wolfe to Summit have developed as a neighborhood "institutional node." An elementary school occupies one block while a new church has been built on the southern half of the subject block. Allowing a day care center to be located in this "node" seems appropriate. It is staff's opinion that the neighborhood would be better served by limiting the use to the day care; not by allowing the variety of office and commercial uses proposed by the applicant. Staff would recommend that the application be amended to a conditional use permit to allow only the day care center operation, as proposed. 6� FILE NO.: Z -4985-E I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 4, 2001) This item was presented in conjunction with Item No. 2, LU01-08-02; a Land Use Plan Amendment. Brian Minyard, of the Planning Staff presented the proposed Plan Amendment. The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the Commission that it appeared that the required notices for the rezoning had been sent later than the required 15 days. The post -mark on the certified mail receipts was unclear but it appeared that the notices were sent no earlier than 14 days and possibly be late as 5 days prior to the meeting. Cedric Rodgers, representing the application, stated he thought the notices were sent September 24, 2001, 10 days prior to the meeting. The Commission studied the mail receipts and reached a consensus that the notices had been sent late. Staff commented that the objector who was present had stated that, although she lives next door, she did not received any notice from the applicant. She had received staff's notice. Mr. Rodgers was advised to renotify, in a timely manner. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 15, 2001 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 2001) The applicant was present. There were three objectors present. This item was presented in conjunction with Item #B, LU01-08-02, a Land Use Plan amendment. Staff informed the Commission the applicant did not obtain a certified abstract list for property owners within 200 feet of the site. The applicant used an abstract listing from a previous application and researched owners at the County Clerks office. There was some question if all property owners within 200 feet were notified. A waiver of 6 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E the By -Laws was required to accept the notification as presented. After a brief discussion a motion was made to waive the By -Laws and accept the notification to adjacent property owners as presented. The vote passed 7 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Robert Stebbins). Staff presented the proposed plan amendment. Staff then presented the proposed PCD and recommended denial of the application as filed. Staff indicated the neighborhood would be better served by limiting the use of the property to an institutional type use such as a daycare facility. Staff recommended the application be re -filed as a Conditional Use Permit to allow a daycare center to operate on the property. Ms. Emma Rodgers was present representing the application. She indicated she was trying to rezone the property to the PRD zoning it previously had. Ms. Arkie Byrd spoke in opposition to the application. She stated she had been a resident of the neighborhood since 1986 and had made a deliberate and conscious choice to live in the area. She stated she would like to see the neighborhood retain the current character plus see a resurgence. She stated rezoning this property to commercial was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Ms. Byrd stated the school and the church had stabilized and enhanced the neighborhood. She stated she would not oppose a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center since it was a daycare before and there was a need in the area for this service. She stated her objection was to the broad based proposal to rezone the property to commercial, which would create conflict and increased traffic into the area. Ms. Byrd stated she lived diagonally from the Proposed project. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, stated the League was opposed to both Items B and C. She stated the Land Use Amendment would be placing commercial in an area of residential and public instructional uses and this was a small site. Ms. Bell voiced opposition to the rezoning because it was so wide open and if approved would allow such a wide range of office and commercial type uses. To the League, she stated, a neighborhood type activity like a daycare center would be more appropriate for the site. John Phillips stated he had lived in the neighborhood since 1966 and he and his family had made a conscious decision to move into the area. He stated he lived next door to the site, at 2400 Wolfe Street. He stated the area has a great history and was 7 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E growing and he would like to see the area continue to grow. He stated he had spoken to Mr. Rodgers and indicated he would not oppose a daycare center but any other commercial type use would not be appropriate and would be -a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd questioned if the parking problem had been resolved. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, indicated a shared parking agreement had not been reached with the church. Commissioner Nunnley stated he lived one and one-half blocks from the site and he was aware the applicant had failed to utilize the property. He stated there was a fire and the property sat vacant for a while. He stated he and many of the residents of the area had been able to turn the area around and make the area a viable residential area again. He stated a., daycare would be an appropriate use of this property but a commercial use would be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Lowry questioned if the applicant could amend the current application to be a daycare center application. Mr. Lawson stated this would be a possibility since staff had the necessary information for a Conditional Use Permit. Dana Carney stated on page 5 of the write-up for this item, the staff analysis goes into some detail of hours of operation, the number of employees and the number of children to be served. He stated those were typically the questions, which are answered as part of a Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Carney stated if this application were amended, staff's recommendation would be approval based on compliance with the conditions stated in the first paragraph of the staff analysis. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Rodgers if she would be agreeable to amend the current application to a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center based on the concerns which had been raised. Commissioner Lowry stated this would help to eliminate some of the concerns of the neighbors that the location might someday become a use not desirable to the neighborhood. Ms. Rodgers asked why if it were zoned PRD in 1999 and the uses were not a problem then, why now have the uses become a problem. Commissioner Lowry stated at the time the changes were made it was beneficial to the neighborhood and now it would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. He stated the fact that it was that way before does not mean it is beneficial now. Commissioner Nunnley stated the Central High Neighborhoods had performed a housing survey in the area to designate the area as a historical area. To add a commercial element into the area 8 FILE NO.: Z -4985-E would be a detriment to the work, which had gone into the area to preserve the area and housing stock. Commissioner Nunnley stated five years later when people have moved back into the - neighborhood, the neighborhood i5 on an upswing and preservation of the residential character is important, this use is not conducive. Had the applicant gone forward with the plans when approved, he surmised, this would be a different discussion. Commissioner Rector stated to Ms. Rodgers that she was entitled to a vote for what she had applied for. She stated she understood that but questioned if she could amend her application to remove some of the uses to be allowed but still be allowed more than a daycare center because there may be a need to change types of businesses at the location. Commissioner Nunnley stated to put a commercial business in a residential area just because you own the land is not a good planning practice. Commissioner Faust questioned Ms. Rodgers if she was aware that she had not applied for a Planned Residential Development but for a Planned Commercial Development. Commissioner Faust stated the issue was the commercial aspect of the development. Commissioner Allen asked if the applicant would be willing to amend the application to a CUP for a daycare center. Mr. Sedrick Rodgers, son of the applicant, stated the original plan was to have a PRD, residential and daycare. If the daycare did not work then it would be changed back to residential. He stated they would be willing to amend the application to a PRD if the Commission would approve the application at this hearing. Chairman Downing asked Mr. Giles if the applicant could amend the application between the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. Mr. Giles stated this was a possibility but the Board could elect to send the application back requesting the Planning Commission to review the application as presented at the Board level. Commissioner Lowry made a motion for approval of the item as presented including all staff recommendations and comments. Commissioner Rector asked staff if the applicant wanted to amend the application to a CUP or a PRD. Mr. Lawson stated a PRD but staff was unclear on the residential portion of the application. He stated staff had a clear understanding of the daycare aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Rector asked the applicant how the residential component of the PRD would be structured. We D FILE NO.: Z -4985-E understand the daycare would be a daycare said Commissioner Rector. Ms. Rodgers stated the she wanted what was in place prior to 1999. Commissioner Rector questioned staff as to what residential piece could be included in the application. Mr. Lawson stated the remainder of the property could be duplex or single-family. He stated the Commission would have to make a motion to allow the staff to work with the applicant to work out the details between the current hearing and the Board meeting. Commissioner Nunnley stated he realized there was a movement for fast track negotiations, however, he did not think this was the application to try this technique on. He stated the Commission was talking about an item that was going to affect the neighborhood and he did not feel comfortable voting on an item and letting staff and the applicant work out the details. He stated details should be resolved and the application brought back to the Commission and voted�on with a recommendation to send to the Board. Mr. Carney stated staff would work with the applicant and bring the details back to the Commission in two weeks. Commissioner Lowry rescinded his previous motion. Commissioner Lowry made the motion for deferral of Items B and C for two -weeks (November 29, 2001). The vote failed 3 ayes, 8 noes, and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry then made a motion for deferral of Item C. The item failed 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. Chairman Downing stated that it would be best to move the item to the Board. Commissioner Lowry made a motion for the approval of Item B to include all staff recommendations and comments. The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry then made a motion for approval of Item C as filed to include all staff recommendations and comments. (This is voting on the PZD as filed without the staff recommendation for a daycare center.) The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. Mr. Lawson asked if the Commission would vote to waive the fee if the applicant were to reapply within a timely manner. Commissioner Rector made the motion to waive the fee if the applicant reapplies within one year. The vote passed 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 461 November 15, 2001 ITEM NO.: C NAME: Rodgers Short -Form PCD LOCATION: 2408 Wolfe Street FILE NO.: Z -4985-E DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Emma Rodgers Michael Hahn, Architect 717 Bradburn Road P. O. Box 1285 No. Little Rock, AR 72117 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: .64± acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Current: R-4 and R-5 Proposed: PCD ALLOWED USES: Residential PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development including duplex, daycare and selected 0-1 and C-2 uses. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. 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 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E 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 with carryout permitted, but with no delivery service allowed. To this date, the property has never completely developed and most of the building is currently vacant. The parking lot within the southern portion of the property was never constructed. 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 sold a portion of the property to Gospel Temple Baptist Church for development of a church facility. Lots 2, 4-10, Block 91 McCarthy's Addition, Lot 10 and the South 1� of Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Terrace Addition reverted to R-4 zoning. Lots 11 and 12, Block 9, McCarthy's Addition reverted to R-5 zoning. On July 6, 1999, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,045 which revoked the three previous PZD ordinances. On May 27, 1999, the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use permit for a church to be constructed on the southern portion of the site. That church has been constructed. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: The applicant is now requesting that the variety of 0-1 and C-2 uses authorized under the 1995 Planned Development be reinstated. Those uses are outlined in the previous paragraph. Development consists of the one, large building that stretches from Wolfe Street to Battery Street, 24 on-site parking spaces and rebuilding a portion of the building that was damaged by a tornado. The applicant proposes to use the 49 parking spaces on the adjacent church site during non -church hours. V4 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a large, 18,038 square foot building. Portions of the building are two -stories in height. The portion nearest Battery Street is one-story in height. A portion of the structure was damaged in a tornado and is proposed to be rebuilt. A paved but otherwise unimproved parking area is located north of the building. A completely unimproved parking area is south of the building. The southern portion of the block has been recently developed as a new church. Large areas of single family and two family residences extend north, east and south of this property. An elementary school is located west of the site, across Battery Street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners of property within 200 feet of the site were to have been notified by the applicant. Staff notified all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown, Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec. 29-186(e). 6.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec. 29-186(c) and (d) . E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main located on site. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. See Attached Map. Entergy: No Comments. ARKLAi: No Comments. K7 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger or additional meters are needed. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Issues. CATA: Project site is located on bus routes #11 and 14 and may affect bus radius, turnout and route. Please inform CATA of construction start and end dates. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a day care center. The property is currently zoned R-4 Two -Family and R-5 Urban Residence. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. Landsca a Issues: A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the expansion proposed (14%) will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2001) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee of the need for more information on hours of operation, dumpster location, signage and the size of the daycare operation. Public Works and Landscape Comments were noted. Staff noted no agreement to allow use of the church parking lot had been submitted. 4 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Staff was asked to meet with the applicant. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the Commission. H. ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff did meet with the applicant. Some issues were resolved. The day care center use was much more clearly defined. The proposed day care will have a maximum of 100 children and 10 employees. Hours of operation for the day care are 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. One, 8 feet by 12 feet ground mounted sign will be placed on the east side of the property. One, 3 feet by 14 feet wall sign will be mounted on the west fagade, facing Battery Street. No additional fencing will be installed. Existing, 6 feet tall wood privacy fencing on the north and south perimeters will remain. The parking lot south of the building will be paved. There will be no outside lighting other than lighting at the entry doors. Authorization to use the church parking lot has not yet been received. No further details on any of the other proposed uses have been submitted. Staff is not supportive of the application, as filed. In our opinion, the multiple office and commercial uses proposed from the 0-1 and 0-2 zoning districts are not appropriate for this location. The property is located in the heart of a primarily single-family residential neighborhood. This neighborhood extends both north and south of Roosevelt Road, in all directions for several blocks around the site. The neighborhood is, at best, fragile; a situation compounded by the recent tornado that damaged or destroyed so much of the neighborhood's residential housing stock. Staff is concerned that introducing the variety of non-residential uses proposed by the applicant into this area would further exacerbate the situation by negatively impacting the livability of adjacent residential properties. Staff does believe that allowing a neighborhood oriented institutional use,,such as the day care center would be appropriate. The two blocks on the north side of Roosevelt, from Wolfe to Summit have developed as a neighborhood "institutional node." An elementary school 6-i November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E occupies one block while a new church has been built on the southern half of the subject block. Allowing a day care center to be located in this "node" seems appropriate. It is staff's opinion that the neighborhood would be better served by limiting the use to the day care; not by allowing the variety of office and commercial uses proposed by the applicant. Staff would recommend that the application be amended to a conditional use permit to allow only the day care center operation, as proposed. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 4, 2001) This item was presented in conjunction with Item No. 2, LU01-08-02; a Land Use Plan Amendment. Brian Minyard, of the Planning Staff presented the proposed Plan Amendment. The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the Commission that it appeared that the required notices for the rezoning had been sent later than the required 15 days. The post -mark on the certified mail receipts was unclear but it appeared that the notices were sent no earlier than 14 days and possibly be late as 5 days prior to the meeting. Cedric Rodgers, representing the application, stated he thought the notices were sent September 24, 2001, 10 days prior to the meeting. The Commission studied the mail receipts and reached a consensus that the notices had been sent late. Staff commented that the objector who was present had stated that, although she lives next door, she did not received any notice from the applicant. She had received staff's notice. 6 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Mr. Rodgers was advised to renotify, in a timely manner. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 15, 2001 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 2001) The applicant was present. There were three objectors present. This item was presented in conjunction with Item #B, LU01-08-02, a Land Use Plan amendment. Staff informed the Commission the, applicant did not obtain a certified abstract list for property owners within 200 feet of the site. The applicant used an abstract listing from a previous application and researched owners at the County Clerks office. There was some question if all property owners within 200 feet were notified. A waiver of the By -Laws was required to accept the notification as presented. After a brief discussion a motion was made to waive the By -Laws and accept the notification to adjacent property owners as presented. The vote passed 7 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Robert Stebbins). Staff presented the proposed plan amendment. Staff then presented the proposed PCD and recommended denial of the application as filed. Staff indicated the neighborhood would be better served by limiting the use of the property to an institutional type use such as a daycare facility. Staff recommended the application be re -filed as a Conditional Use Permit to allow a daycare center to operate on the property. Ms. Emma Rodgers was present representing the application. She indicated she was trying to rezone the property to the PRD zoning it previously had. Ms. Arkie Byrd spoke in opposition to the application. She stated she had been a resident of the neighborhood since 1986 and had made a deliberate and conscious choice to live in the area. She stated she would like to see the neighborhood retain the current character plus see a resurgence. She stated rezoning this property to commercial was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Ms. Byrd stated the school and the church had stabilized and enhanced the neighborhood. She stated she would not oppose a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center since it was a daycare before and there was a 7 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E need in the area for this service. She stated her objection was to the broad based proposal to rezone the property to commercial, which would create conflict and increased traffic into the area. Ms. Byrd stated she lived diagonally from the proposed project. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, stated the League was opposed to both Items B and C. She stated the Land Use Amendment would be placing commercial in an area of residential and public instructional uses and this was a small site. Ms. Bell voiced opposition to the rezoning because it was so wide open and if approved would allow such a wide range of office and commercial type uses. To the League, she stated, a neighborhood type activity like a daycare center would be more appropriate for the site. John Phillips stated he had lived in the neighborhood since 1966 and he and his family had made a conscious decision to move into the area. He stated he lived next door to the site, at 2400 Wolfe Street. He stated the area has a great history and was growing and he would like to see the area continue to grow. He stated he had spoken to Mr. Rodgers and indicated he would not oppose a daycare center but any other commercial type use would not be appropriate and would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd questioned if the parking problem had been resolved. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, indicated a shared parking agreement had not been reached with the church. Commissioner Nunnley stated he lived one and one-half blocks from the site and he was aware the applicant had failed to utilize the property. He stated there was a fire and the property sat vacant for a while. He stated he and many of the residents of the area had been able to turn the area around and make the area a viable residential area again. He stated a daycare would be an appropriate use of this property but a commercial use would be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Lowry questioned if the applicant could amend the current application to be a daycare center application. Mr. Lawson stated this would be a possibility since staff had the necessary information for a Conditional Use Permit. Dana Carney stated on page 5 of the write-up for this item, the staff analysis goes into some detail of hours of operation, the number of employees and the number of children to be served. He stated those were typically the questions, which are answered as part 8 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E of a Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Carney stated if this application were amended, staff's recommendation would be approval based on compliance with the conditions stated in the first paragraph of the staff analysis. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Rodgers if she would be agreeable to amend the current application to a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center based on the concerns which had been raised. Commissioner Lowry stated this would help to eliminate some of the concerns of the neighbors that the location might someday become a use not desirable to the neighborhood. Ms. Rodgers asked why if it were zoned PRD in 1999 and the uses were not a problem then, why now have the uses become a problem. Commissioner Lowry stated at the time the changes were made it was beneficial to the neighborhood and now it would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. He stated the fact that it was that way before does not mean it is beneficial now. Commissioner Nunnley stated the Central High Neighborhoods had performed a housing survey in the area to designate the area as a historical area. To add a commercial element into the area would be a detriment to the work, which had gone into the area to preserve the area and housing stock. Commissioner Nunnley stated five years later when people have moved back into the neighborhood, the neighborhood is on an upswing and preservation of the residential character is important, this use is not conducive. Had the applicant gone forward with the plans when approved, he surmised, this would be a different discussion. Commissioner Rector stated to Ms. Rodgers that she was entitled to a vote for what she had applied for. She stated she understood that but questioned if she could amend her application to remove some of the uses to be allowed but still be allowed more than a daycare center because there may be a need to change types of businesses at the location. Commissioner Nunnley stated to put a commercial business in a residential area just because you own the land is not a good planning practice. Commissioner Faust questioned Ms. Rodgers if she was aware that she had not applied for a Planned Residential Development but for a Planned Commercial Development. Commissioner Faust stated the issue was the commercial aspect of the development. 0 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Commissioner Allen asked if the applicant would be willing to amend the application to a CUP for a daycare center. Mr. Sedrick Rodgers, son of the applicant, stated the original plan was to have a PRD, residential and daycare. If the daycare did not work then it would be changed back to residential. He stated they would be willing to amend the application to a PRD if the Commission would approve the application at this hearing. Chairman Downing asked Mr. Giles if the applicant could amend the application between the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. Mr. Giles stated this was a possibility but the Board could elect to send the application back requesting the Planning Commission to review the application as presented at' the Board level. Commissioner Lowry made a motion for approval of the item as presented including all staff recommendations and comments. Commissioner Rector asked staff if the applicant wanted to amend the application to a CUP or a PRD. Mr. Lawson stated a PRD but staff was unclear on the residential portion of the application. He stated staff had a clear understanding of the daycare aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Rector asked the applicant how the residential component of the PRD would be structured. We understand the daycare would be a daycare said Commissioner Rector. Ms. Rodgers stated the she wanted what was in place prior to 1999. Commissioner Rector questioned staff as to what residential piece could be included in the application. Mr. Lawson stated the remainder of the property could be duplex or single-family. He stated the Commission would have to make a motion to allow the staff to work with the applicant to work out the details between the current hearing and the Board meeting. Commissioner Nunnley stated he realized there was a movement for fast track negotiations, however, he did not think this was the application to try this technique on. He stated the Commission was talking about an item that was going to affect the neighborhood and he did not feel comfortable voting on an item and letting staff and the applicant work out the details. He stated details should be resolved and the application brought back to the Commission and voted on with a recommendation to send to the Board. Mr. Carney stated staff would work with the applicant and bring the details back to the Commission in two weeks. 10 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4985-E Commissioner Lowry rescinded his previous motion. Commissioner Lowry made the motion for deferral of Items B and C for two -weeks (November 29, 2001). The vote failed 3 ayes, 8 noes, and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry then made a motion for deferral of Item C. The item failed 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. Chairman Downing stated that it would be best to move the item to the Board. Commissioner Lowry made a motion for the approval of Item B to include all staff recommendations and comments. The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry then made a motion for approval of Item C as filed to include all staff recommendations and comments. (This is voting on the PZD as filed without the staff recommendation for a daycare center.) The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. Mr. Lawson asked if the Commission would vote to waive the fee if the applicant were to reapply within a timely manner. Commissioner Rector made the motion to waive the fee if the applicant reapplies within one year. The vote passed 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 11