Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5442-E Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5442-E NAME: Mitchell Elementary School Revised Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of 24th and Battery Streets DEVELOPER: Mitchell Elementary LLC Dr. George T. Blevins, Jr. 1704 West 19th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 SURVEYOR: Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. 217 West 2"d Street, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72201 AR(:HITF(-:T Kwendeche, AIA 2124 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 2.502 ± acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development — Multi -family Residential, Office, Commercial, Public/Quasi Public Uses - Charter School — Gymnasium, Wellness Center, Commercial, Office, Public/Quasi Public, Media Center/Radio Station PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development - Add Elderly Housing VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The overall property located at 2410 S. Battery Street is divided into three basic areas: 1) the Main Building — the original structure built in 1908 with approximately 35,000 square feet including an attached addition, called the Annex; 2) a one story FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. classroom addition with approximately 3,800 square feet; and 3) a single detached classroom building, built in the 1970's with approximately 1,000 square feet all totaling approximately 39,800 square feet. The property was zoned R-4, Two-family District with a Conditional Use Permit to allow a school. Ordinance No. 20,004 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2008, established the James Mitchell School Short -form PCD. The approval established uses for the site requiring a number of the uses to be reviewed through a revision to the PCD prior to the use locating on the site. The uses which were allowed without a public review were the public -quasi public type uses such as the pre -K-12 educational/day care — supplemental educational services, Saturday academy, summer program, pre -K program and/or day care, meeting space for the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association. The approval also allowed the owner to operate warehouse space for storage of merchandise for his internet distribution business. There was to be no walk- in customer traffic because the business involved internet sales only. Approved uses which would require review through a revision to the PCD included multi -family residential -- 1, 2, 3 bedroom loft apartments, recreation — fitness center and/or police athletic league, dance studio/recording studio, meeting/event rental space — conference/ meetings/ workshop/ wedding receptions and/or parties, eating place inside — cafe, cafeteria and/or restaurant. Ordinance No. 20,140 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 23, 2009, allowed a revision to the PCD zoning. The proposed development activities included a charter school in the main 33,000 square foot building of the former Mitchell Elementary School. The charter school was proposed with 550 students grades 5, 7 and 8 with 48 staff members utilizing 21 classrooms in the main 33,000 square foot building, 5 classrooms in the two existing outer buildings and 4 classrooms in the new gymnasium building. The normal hours of operation of the charter school were from 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. There would also be special programs from time to time such as open house, recitals or other school functions scheduled during the evening or weekend hours. In recognition of the charter school's need to include physical education in the curriculum, during Phase 2, the developer was to build a two story building, approximately 35,000 square feet on the southwest segment of the site to accommodate the basic physical education needs of the middle school level charter school facility. The charter school's gym included indoor and rooftop activity space, including an indoor regulation sized basketball court, multi -use with expanding bleachers for school assemblies; aerobics; paddle ball; volley ball; and community functions, locker and shower facilities; administrative office space; and a green roof or eco -roof for energy consciousness advantages as well as an external laboratory for academic projects. During off hours, the gymnasium facility was approved as meeting rental space for events hosted by the Charter School or the Neighborhood Association. The new gymnasium facility would be linked by a covered walkway to the main school building. K FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is now requesting to amend the PCD to add elderly housing as an allowable use for the site. For the last two (2) years, the owner has actively maintained a warehouse space within the Main Building to support on online mail order business and now intends to proceed with the overall redevelopment as a senior citizen housing facility with designated commercial lease spaces. One of the commercial lease spaces will be a resident community laundry (required by ADFA) to be placed both in the new apartment building and in the basement of the Main Building. It is intended that all of the commercial leased spaces will maintain normal daytime operating hours. Given a preliminary review of the available former classrooms and other public areas, it is planned that the main building (approximately 35,000 square feet) will be renovated to accommodate sixteen (16) 2 -bedroom units and that a new three-level apartment building (approximately 45,000 square feet) will be constructed on the southwest corner of the site to accommodate forty (40) 2 -bedroom units at a minimum of 950 square feet each. The overall development will consist of fifty-six (56) senior citizen housing units. The public corridors in the main building will be renovated as common spaces (passive seating areas) for the residents to interact outside of their private units. A new security station may be included at the north entry lobby to the main building as well as at the basement loading dock area. Commercial lease spaces will occur in the detached four (4) classroom building, the single classroom building, the basement of the main building, the new building and the attic of the main building. The new apartment building will embody a similar architectural character to compliment the original school building, including the use of patterned brick veneer, precast concrete accents and distinctly accentuated window openings. Under the new development plan the owner will abandon the use of the current facility as a warehouse for his online business. Given the use of the property the owner will install two (2) new passenger elevators to serve the residents including access to the attic of the existing building. All existing paved areas will be updated. The existing playground and basketball court will be paved to add additional parking within the development. The site plan indicate the placement of 84 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated possible commercial activities include a Daycare center, Photography studio, Office space, After school, Saturday and summer programs for pre K-12 students, Barberlbeauty shop and Non-profit office space. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a former elementary school campus. The area is predominately residential with a scattering of commercial and office uses located along 3 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. Roosevelt Road. To the east is a property zoned PCD which was approved for a daycare facility. To the west along Roosevelt Road is a property zoned C-3, General Commercial District which is presently vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of phone calls from the area residents and property owners requesting additional information. All property owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the MLK Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center, the Southend Coalition, the South End Neighborhood Association and the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. Staff has received a letter of support from the Wight Avenue Neighborhood Association. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Roosevelt Road/South Summit Avenue; South Summit Avenue[West 24th Street; West 24th Street/Battery Street; and South Battery Street/Roosevelt Road. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Roosevelt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial with special design standards. Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline will be required. 4. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that Battery Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Capacity Analysis required prior to final platting. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Ener: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Due to the nature of this 11 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required for sprinkler system. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14, the Rosedale Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISS U ES/TECHN I CAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for revised Short -form Planned Commercial Development. The proposed uses are to include residential and commercial. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Master Street Plan: Roosevelt Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Roosevelt Road since it is a Principal Arterial, Battery Street is shown as a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets 5 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E (Cont. may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landsca e: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning street buffer requires a nine -foot wide (9') street buffer around the sites entirety. This site is located within the Mature Area of the City; therefore, the street buffer can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6-9") in hardship cases. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a nine -foot wide (9') landscape strip around the sites entirety. This site is located within the "Mature Area" of the City; therefore, the perimeter landscape strip can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6'-9") in hardship cases. 4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 2, 2010) Kwendeche and Dr. Blevins were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the cover letter indicated commercial areas within the development in each of the buildings. Staff requested the total square footage within each building proposed for commercial activities. Staff stated the cover letter indicated the uses as commercial activities as allowed in the Quiet Office designation. Staff requested Kwendeche more clearly define the proposed uses. Staff stated a number of questions had been raised by the neighbors and requested these items be addressed in the revised cover letter. Staff stated the area residents were requesting assurance the development would be architecturally compatible with the existing structures and the units would be restricted to elderly persons. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated radial dedications would be required at the intersections of the abutting streets. Staff stated a dedication of right of way 35 -feet from centerline was required along Roosevelt Road. Staff 101 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E [Cont. stated Battery Street would also require a right of way dedication of 30 feet from centerline. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance both required a perimeter landscape strip of nine (9) feet around the site's perimeter. Staff stated the site was located within the designated "Mature Area of the City" and both ordinances allowed the landscape strip to be reduced to six feet nine inches (69") when a hardship could be demonstrated. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the September 2, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the commercial area in the attic of the main building is approximately 5,000 square feet, in the basement 2,000 square feet and in the new building approximately 2,000 square feet. The commercial lease space located in the stand-alone building near the intersection of South Battery Street and Roosevelt Road is 3,800 square feet. The retail uses proposed are as were previously approved; Includes leased office space, a daycare center, computer services for training and service, beauty/barber shop, photographic studio. Other potential uses include an after school, Saturday and summer programs for pre K-12 students and office space for a non-profit organization. The applicant has indicated the proposed laundry facilities are for residents only. Ancillary services are anticipated to serve the needs of the seniors, including "Meals on Wheels", use of the existing kitchen and cafeteria for special events (birthday parties, receptions, family-oriented functions), and specialized transportation services for trips to the doctor's office, food markets, churches and schools. In addition the site is located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The storage space located in the basement will also be limited to storage for residents only. The applicant has indicated there is a potential that in the future the kitchen will be opened to provide on-site meals for residents. The site plan indicates the placement of dumpsters on the interior of the development. The applicant has indicated the hours will be restricted to weekdays during daylight hours. The applicant has indicated the existing building will be renovated to accommodate sixteen (16) 2 -bedroom units and that a new three-level 7 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. apartment building (approximately 45,000 square feet) will be constructed on the southwest corner of the site to accommodate forty (40) 2 -bedroom units all with a minimum of 950 square feet each. The overall development will consist of fifty-six (56) senior citizen housing units. The cover letter indicated the new construction will be conventional steel structural framed building with concrete decked floors. Brick and precast concrete exterior cladding will be used. The existing structure is located on the National Register of Historic Places so all renovation work will be done in strict accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. The new construction will take into account the historic significance of the existing structure with regard to design and construction materials. Funding for the development is from private sources and grants. The site will maintain outdoor green spaces to allow the residents areas for outdoor living space. The site plan indicates the placement of 84 parking spaces to serve the development. Parking for an elderly housing development typically requires 0.5 spaces per unit. The development is indicated as a mixed use development containing office, commercial and residential uses. Staff feels the parking as proposed is adequate to serve the development. The revised site plan indicates the site is located within the "Designated Mature Area" of the City which allows a reduction in the required landscape strip from nine (9) feet to six feet nine inches (6'9"). The site plan as proposed complies with this minimum requirement. The applicant has not addressed signage. Staff recommends signage should comply with signage allowed in office zones. Ground signage would be allowed with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square feet. Building signage would be allowed with a maximum of ten percent of the fagade area abutting a public street. Staff is supportive of the request. With the original approval multi -family in 1, 2 and 3 bedroom lots was an option listed for redevelopment of the site through a revision to the PCD. The use of the property as elderly housing should limit the number of trips generated from the site since elderly residents typically are not working on a daily basis. The applicant has indicated the residency of the property will be for elderly residents 55 years plus. The applicant will follow the Federal Guidelines for residency and occupancy of the units. Staff does not feel the commercial uses will negatively impact the development or the area. The original approval allowed for a larger percentage of the site to be used as retail/office uses and with the current request the retail/office uses are limited to less than 10,000 square feet. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the development of the site as proposed is an appropriate use. r,1 FILE NO.: Z-5442-E_(Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends signage be limited to signage allowed in office zones. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. Kwendeche addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the request was to add senior citizen housing as an allowable use for the property. He stated the development would be constructed in a manner as to maintain the historical status of the existing building. He stated the new building would contain up to 40 units of elderly housing. He stated there had been three presentations to the neighborhood to receive input and provide additional information. He stated the new building would be constructed in a complimentary manner but would not be designed to mimic the existing building. He stated all renovations would take place in accordance with State and Federal Guidelines for renovations of historic structures. He stated the development would provide areas of passive open spaces for the residents including wide hallways. He stated the development was proposed as a secure development with limited access to the parking areas. Mr. James Floyd and Mr. Rocky Herman filled out cards in support but did not wish to address the Commission. Ms. Annie Abrams addressed the Commission not in support nor opposition of the request. She stated the residents were concerned with the development because there was not enough information to allow residents the opportunity to determine if they were in favor or opposed to the request. She stated a number of the residents felt intimidate when questions were asked of the applicant. She stated the Neighborhood Association had voted to support the request but did not follow the Memorandum of Understanding. She stated the residents had a right to question the impact of the development on the neighborhood but the applicant had not been forthcoming with answers. Ms. Jennifer Carman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located at 2315 South Summit Street. She stated the residents in the area had purchased their homes after a number of years of neglect and had sent considerable money to rehab the homes. She stated a number of the homes were located on the historic register. She stated Mitchell School was the crown jewel of the neighborhood. She stated there was a lack of information concerning the proposed development. She stated there was a concern that the second building would look out 9 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. of character with the existing structure. She stated the new building as proposed would be the second largest building in the District second only to Central High School. She stated residents were in support of a charter school. She stated persons at the charter school would be gone by 5:00 pm and on weekends. She stated the residents were in support of allow the existing building to be converted to elderly housing but the concern was the addition of the second building. She stated there would be 112 bedrooms located on the site which would generate a significant amount of traffic. She stated the residents were concerned with the applicant's ability to manage the project as far as development and financing. She stated the residents were also concerned the rehabilitation would not be in keeping with the federal requirements thus jeopardizing the status of the remaining homes in the area. Ms. Claretha Nelson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the developer had a Memorandum of Understanding with the Neighborhood Association which outlined various steps necessary to revise the zoning for the building. She stated the developer did not follow the MOU and was in violation of the MOU. She stated the developer had bypassed the Executive Committee and gone straight to the Neighborhood Association for a vote. She stated the residents were concerned with the developer not following the MOU. She stated the developer had met with the residents but the meeting place was not conducive to a meeting. She stated there were no chairs and no air-conditioning. She stated in her opinion this only reinforced the developers lack of concern for the neighborhood. Ms. Carrie Porter addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located across the street from Mitchell School. She stated the residents were concerned with property values and the future development of the school. She stated there were a number of apartments located in the area and a number of those were currently vacant. She stated the residents questioned who were the investors. She stated Dr. Blevins had indicated he would not divulge this information. She stated the residents were concerned with who would manage the development once completed. She questioned the financing of the development including the percentage of federal funds, private funds and the applicant's funds. She questioned the design of the new structure. She stated the elevation provided to the neighborhood looked like a building on stilts. She stated her concern was Dr. Blevins had never done a project like this before and questioned his ability to complete the project in accordance with the historical guidelines. Ms. Donna Thomas addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was currently remodeling two homes across the street from Mitchell School. She stated her renovations were to historical standards. She stated her concern was the development and renovation proposed by the developer were not in keeping with the redevelopment standards set forth by the State. She stated the area was predominately single-family owner occupiE;d units. She stated the residents were not opposed to a school but were opposed to 40 units of residential housing. She stated the residents had not been given enough information to base a decision of support. 10 FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Cont. Dr. George Blevins addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the development was good for the neighborhood. He stated the budget for the project had not been completely developed but the project was in excess of $7 million dollars. He stated there was a MOU with the neighborhood but this was not an issue to be considered by the Commission. He stated once it was brought to his attention he and the Association members corrected the steps and the MOU was now being followed. He stated in research he had found that Arkansas ranked 48th in senior poverty. He stated the units were needed. He stated he had shared as much information as he had concerning the development. He stated the only thing he had not shared was the investors for the project. He stated the development was proposed with ADFA funding but there were no plans to seek Section 8 or HUD 202 funds. He stated the development would provide secured access. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning funding and the Commission's role in the past concerning funding of developments. Commissioner Devine stated during his term he was unaware of the Commission imposing a condition on a developer concerning funding. He stated the development was not the Commission's risk but the developer's risk. The Commission questioned if the project would be completed in a single phase or in multiple phases. Dr. Blevins stated the development would be completed in a single phase. He stated the second building was necessary to make the numbers work for the development. The Commission questioned the architectural style of the new construction. Dr. Blevins stated the new construction would not be the same as the existing structure. He stated plans would be submitted to the State Historic Commission for review and comment. He stated the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior would be followed. He stated he would not jeopardize the historical status of the existing building. Commissioner Laha questioned if there would be meeting space available for the Neighborhood Association within the buildings. Dr. Blevins stated there would be meeting space available for the Neighborhood Association. Dr. Blevins stated within the MOU there was also a provision that the Neighborhood Association would receive three to five percent of the profits from the operations of the site. There was a general discussion concerning the design of the new building. The Commission questioned if Dr. Blevins was willing to make a part of his application request a requirement that the applicant would submit the plans to the State Historic Commission for review of the design plans prior to construction. Dr. Blevins stated he was willing to condition the approval on submission of the plans to the State Historic District for review prior to construction. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 11 September 23, 2010 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE N, NAME: Mitchell Elementary School Revised Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of 24th and Battery Streets DEVELOPER: Mitchell Elementary LLC Dr. George T. Blcvins, Jr. 1704 West 19th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 SURVEYOR: Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. 217 West 2nd Street, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72201 ARCHITECT: Kwendeche, AIA 2124 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Z-5442 AREA: 2.502 + acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development - Multi -family Residential, Office, Commercial, Public/Quasi Public Uses - Charter School - Gymnasium, Wellness Center, Commercial, Office, Public/Quasi Public, Media Center/Radio Station PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development - Add Elderly Housing VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The overall property located at 2410 S. Battery Street is divided into three basic areas: 1) the Main Building - the original structure built in 1908 with approximately September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5442-E 35,000 square feet including an attached addition, called the Annex; 2) a one story classroom addition with approximately 3,800 square feet; and 3) a single detached classroom building, built in the 1970's with approximately 1,000 square feet all totaling approximately 39,800 square feet. The property was zoned R-4, Two-family District with a Conditional Use Permit to allow a school. Ordinance No. 20,004 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2008, established the James Mitchell School Short -form PCD. The approval established uses for the site requiring a number of the uses to be reviewed through a revision to the PCD prior to the use locating on the site. The uses which were allowed without a public review were the public -quasi public type uses such as the pre -K-12 educational/day care — supplemental educational services, Saturday academy, summer program, pre -K program and/or day care, meeting space for the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association. The approval also allowed the owner to operate warehouse space for storage of merchandise for his internet distribution business. There was to be no walk- in customer traffic because the business involved internet sales only. Approved uses which would require review through a revision to the PCD 'included multi -family residential — 1, 2, 3 bedroom loft apartments, recreation — fitness center and/or police athletic league, dance studio/recording studio, meeting/event rental space — conference/ meetings/ workshop/ wedding receptions and/or parties, eating place inside — cafe, cafeteria and/or restaurant. Ordinance No. 20,140 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 23, 2009, allowed a revision to the PCD zoning. The proposed development activities included a charter school in the main 33,000 square foot building of the former Mitchell Elementary School. The charter school was proposed with 550 students grades 6, 7 and 8 with 48 staff members utilizing 21 classrooms in the main 33,000 square foot building, 5 classrooms in the two existing outer buildings and 4 classrooms in the new gymnasium building. The normal hours of operation of the charter school were from 7 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. There would also be special programs from time to time such as open house, recitals or other school functions scheduled during the evening or weekend hours. In recognition of the charter school's need to include physical education in the curriculum, during Phase 2, the developer was to build a two story building, approximately 35,000 square feet on the southwest segment of the site to accommodate the basic physical education needs of the middle school level charter school facility. The charter school's gym included indoor and rooftop activity space, including an indoor regulation sized basketball court, multi -use with expanding bleachers for school assemblies; aerobics; paddle ball; volley ball; and community functions, locker and shower facilities; administrative office space; and a green roof or eco -roof for energy consciousness advantages as well as an external laboratory for academic projects. During off hours, the gymnasium facility was approved as meeting rental space for events hosted by the Charter School or the Neighborhood Association. 2 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.JFILE NO.: Z -5442-E The new gymnasium facility would be linked by a covered walkway to the main school building A. PRO POSALIREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is now requesting to amend the PCD to add elderly housing as an allowable use for the site. For the last two (2) years, the owner has actively maintained a warehouse space within the Main Building to support on online mail order business and now intends to proceed with the overall redevelopment as a senior citizen housing facility with designated commercial lease spaces. One of the commercial lease spaces will be a resident community laundry (required by ADFA) to be placed both in the new apartment building and in the basement of the Main Building. It is intended that all of the commercial leased spaces will maintain normal daytime operating hours. Given a preliminary review of the available former classrooms and other public areas, it is planned that the main building (approximately 35,000 square feet) will be renovated to accommodate sixteen (1 G) 2 -bedroom units and that a new three-level apartment building (approximately 45,000 square feet) will be constructed on the southwest corner of the site to accommodate forty (40) 2 -bedroom units at a minimum of 950 square feet each. The overall development will consist of fifty-six (56) senior citizen housing units. The public corridors in the main building will be renovated as common spaces (passive seating areas) for the residents to interact outside of their private units. A new security station may be included at the north entry lobby to the main building as well as at the basement loading dock area. Commercial lease spaces will occur in the detached four (4) classroom building, the single classroom building, the basement of the main building, the new building and the attic of the main building. The new apartment building will embody a similar architectural character to compliment the original school building, including the use of patterned brick veneer, precast concrete accents and distinctly accentuated window openings. Under the new development plan the owner will abandon the use of the current facility as a warehouse for his online business. Given the use of the property the owner will install two (2) new passenger elevators to serve the residents including access to the attic of the existing building. All existing paved areas will be updated. The existing playground and basketball court will be paved to add additional parking within the development. The site plan indicate the placement of 84 parking spaces. 3 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5442-E The applicant has indicated possible commercial activities include a Daycare center, Photography studio, Office space, After school, Saturday and summer programs for pre K-12 students, Barber/beauty shop and Non-profit office space. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a former elementary school campus. The area is predominately residential with a scattering of commercial and office uses located along Roosevelt Road. To the east is a property zoned PCD which was approved for a daycare facility. To the west along Roosevelt Road is a property zoned C-3, General Commercial District which is presently vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of phone calls from the area residents and property owners requesting additional information. All property owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the MLK Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center, the Southend Coalition, the South End Neighborhood Association and the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. Staff has received a letter of support from the Wight Avenue Neighborhood Association. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS, PUBLIC WORKS- CONDITIONS: 1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Roosevelt Road/South Summit Avenue; South Summit Avenue/West 24th Street; West 24th Street/Battery Street; and South Battery Street/Roosevelt Road. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Roosevelt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial with special design standards. Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline will be required. 4. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that Battery Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. Il September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5442-E E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Capacity Analysis required prior to final platting. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Enercly: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required for sprinkler system. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14, the Rosedale Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. k September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5442-E F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has applied for revised Short -form Planned Commercial Development. The proposed uses are to include residential and commercial. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas. The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Master Street Plan: Roosevelt Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Roosevelt Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Battery Street is shown as a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bic cle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning street buffer requires a nine -foot wide (9') street buffer around the sites entirety. This site is located within the "Mature Area" of the City; therefore, the street buffer can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6-9") in hardship cases. 3. The landscape ordinance requires a nine -foot wide (9') landscape strip around the sites entirety. This site is located within the "Mature Area" of the City; therefore, the perimeter landscape strip can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6'-9") in hardship cases. 4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5442-E 6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 2, 2010) Kwendeche and Dr. Blevins were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the cover letter indicated commercial areas within the development in each of the buildings. Staff requested the total square footage within each building proposed for commercial activities. Staff stated the cover letter indicated the uses as commercial activities as allowed in the Quiet Office designation. Staff requested Kwendeche more clearly define the proposed uses. Staff stated a number of questions had been raised by the neighbors and requested these items be addressed in the revised cover letter. Staff stated the area residents were requesting assurance the development would be architecturally compatible with the existing structures and the units would be restricted to elderly persons. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated radial dedications would be required at the intersections of the abutting streets. Staff stated a dedication of right of way 35 -feet from centerline was required along Roosevelt Road. Staff stated Battery Street would also require a right of way dedication of 30 feet from centerline. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance both required a perimeter landscape strip of nine (9) feet around the site's perimeter. Staff stated the site was located within the designated„ Mature Area of the City and both ordinances allowed the landscape strip to be reduced to six feet nine inches (69") when a hardship could be demonstrated. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the September 2, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has 7 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5(Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5442-E indicated the commercial area in the attic of the main building is approximately 5,000 square feet, in the basement 2,000 square feet and in the new building approximately 2,000 square feet. The commercial lease space located in the stand-alone building near the intersection of South Battery Street and Roosevelt Road is 3,800 square feet. The retail uses proposed are as were previously approved; includes leased office space, a daycare center, computer services for training and service, beauty/barber shop, photographic studio. Other potential uses include an after school, Saturday and summer programs for pre K-12 students and office space for a non-profit organization. The applicant has indicated the proposed laundry facilities are for residents only. Ancillary services are anticipated to serve the needs of the seniors, including "Meals on Wheels", use of the existing kitchen and cafeteria for special events (birthday parties, receptions, family-oriented functions), and specialized transportation services for trips to the doctor's office, food markets, churches and schools. In addition the site is located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The storage space located in the basement will also be limited to storage for residents only. The applicant has indicated there is a potential that in the future the kitchen will be opened to provide on-site meals for residents. The site plan indicates the placement of dumpsters on the interior of the development. The applicant has indicated the hours will be restricted to weekdays during daylight hours. The applicant has indicated the existing building will be renovated to accommodate sixteen (16) 2 -bedroom units and that a new three-level apartment building (approximately 45,000 square feet) will be constructed on the southwest corner of the site to accommodate forty (40) 2 -bedroom units all with a minimum of 950 square feet each. The overall development will consist of fifty-six (56) senior citizen housing units. The cover letter indicated the new construction will be conventional steel structural framed building with concrete decked floors. Brick and precast concrete exterior cladding will be used. The existing structure is located on the National Register of Historic Places so all renovation work will be done in strict accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. The new construction will take into account the historic significance of the existing structure with regard to design and construction materials. Funding for the development is from private sources and grants. The site will maintain outdoor green spaces to allow the residents areas for outdoor living space. The site plan indicates the placement of 84 parking spaces to serve the development. Parking for an elderly housing development typically requires 0.5 spaces per unit. The development is indicated as a mixed use development �Q September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5442-E containing office, commercial and residential uses. Staff feels the parking as proposed is adequate to serve the development. The revised site plan indicates the site is located within the "Designated Mature Area" of the City which allows a reduction in the required landscape strip from nine (9) feet to six feet nine inches (69"). The site plan as proposed complies with this minimum requirement. The applicant has not addressed signage. Staff recommends signage should comply with signage allowed in office zones. Ground signage would be allowed with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum sign area of sixty-four square feet. Building signage would be allowed with a maximum of ten percent of the facade area abutting a public street. Staff is supportive of the request. With the original approval multi -family in 1, 2 and 3 bedroom lots was an option listed for redevelopment of the site through a revision to the PCD. The use of the property as elderly housing should limit the number of trips generated from the site since elderly residents typically are not working on a daily basis. The applicant has indicated the residency of the property will be for elderly residents 55 years plus. The applicant will follow the Federal Guidelines for residency and occupancy of the units. Staff does not feel the commercial uses will negatively impact the development or the area. The original approval allowed for a larger percentage of the site to be used as retail/office uses and with the current request the retailloffice uses are limited to less than 10,000 square feet. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the development of the site as proposed is an appropriate use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends signage be limited to signage allowed in office zones. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. D September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5442-E Kwendeche addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the request was to add senior citizen housing as an allowable use for the property. He stated the development would be constructed in a manner as to maintain the historical status of the existing building. He stated the new building would contain up to 40 units of elderly housing. He stated there had been three presentations to the neighborhood to receive input and provide additional information. He stated the new building would be constructed in a complimentary manner but would not be designed to mimic the existing building. He stated all renovations would take place in accordance with State and Federal Guidelines for renovations of historic structures. He stated the development would provide areas of passive open spaces for the residents including wide hallways. He stated the development was proposed as a secure development with limited access to the parking areas. Mr. James Floyd and Mr. Rocky Herman filled out cards in support but did not wish to address the Commission. Ms. Annie Abrams addressed the Commission not in support nor opposition of the request. She stated the residents were concerned with the development because there was not enough information to allow residents the opportunity to determine if they were in favor or opposed to the request. She stated a number of the residents felt intimidate when questions were asked of the applicant. She stated the Neighborhood Association had voted to support the request but did not follow the Memorandum of Understanding. She stated the residents had a right to question the impact of the development on the neighborhood but the applicant had not been forthcoming with answers. Ms. Jennifer Carman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located at 2315 South Summit Street. She stated the residents in the area had purchased their homes after a number of years of neglect and had sent considerable money to rehab the homes. She stated a number of the homes were located on the historic register. She stated Mitchell School was the crown jewel of the neighborhood. She stated there was a lack of information concerning the proposed development. She stated there was a concern that the second building would look out of character with the existing structure. She stated the new building as proposed would be the second largest building in the District second only to Central High School. She stated residents were in support of a charter school. She stated persons at the charter school would be gone by 5:00 pm and on weekends. She stated the residents were in support of allow the existing building to be converted to elderly housing but the concern was the addition of the second building. She stated there would be 112 bedrooms located on the site which would generate a significant amount of traffic. She stated the residents were concerned with the applicant's ability to manage the project as far as development and financing. She stated the residents were also concerned the rehabilitation would not be in keeping with the federal requirements thus jeopardizing the status of the remaining homes in the area. 10 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. LE NO.: Z -5442 - Ms. Claretha Nelson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the developer had a Memorandum of Understanding with the Neighborhood Association which outlined various steps necessary to revise the zoning for the building. She stated the developer did not follow the MOU and was in violation of the MOU. She stated the developer had bypassed the Executive Committee and gone straight to the Neighborhood Association for a vote. She stated the residents were concerned with the developer not following the MOU. She stated the developer had met with the residents but the meeting place was not conducive to a meeting. She stated there were no chairs and no air-conditioning. She stated in her opinion this only reinforced the developers lack of concern for the neighborhood. Ms. Carrie Porter addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her home was located across the street from Mitchell School. She stated the residents were concerned with property values and the future development of the school. She stated there were a number of apartments located in the area and a number of those were currently vacant. She stated the residents questioned who were the investors. She stated Dr. Blevins had indicated he would not divulge this information. She stated the residents were concerned with who would manage the development once completed. She questioned the financing of the development including the percentage of federal funds, private funds and the applicant's funds. She questioned the design of the new structure. She stated the elevation provided to the neighborhood looked like a building on stilts. She stated her concern was Dr. Blevins had never done a project like this before and questioned his ability to complete the project in accordance with the historical guidelines. Ms. Donna Thomas addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was currently remodeling two homes across the street from Mitchell School. She stated her renovations were to historical standards. She stated her concern was the development and renovation proposed by the developer were not in keeping with the redevelopment standards set forth by the State. She stated the area was predominately single-family owner occupied units. She stated the residents were not opposed to a school but were opposed to 40 units of residential housing. She stated the residents had not been given enough information to base a decision of support. Dr. George Blevins addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the development was good for the neighborhood. He stated the budget for the project had not been completely developed but the project was in excess of $7 million dollars. He stated there was a MOU with the neighborhood but this was not an issue to be considered by the Commission. He stated once it was brought to his attention he and the Association members corrected the steps and the MOU was now being followed. He stated in research he had found that Arkansas ranked 48th in senior poverty. He stated the units were needed. He stated he had shared as much information as he had 11 September 23, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cort. FILE NO.: Z -5442 - concerning the development. He stated the only thing he had not shared was the investors for the project. He stated the development was proposed with ADFA funding but there were no plans to seek Section 8 or HUD 202 funds. He stated the development would provide secured access. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning funding and the Commission's role in the past concerning funding of developments. Commissioner Devine stated during his term he was unaware of the Commission imposing a condition on a developer concerning funding. He stated the development was not the Commission's risk but the developer's risk. The Commission questioned if the project would be completed in a single phase or in multiple phases. Dr. Blevins stated the development would be completed in a single phase. He stated the second building was necessary to make the numbers work for the development. The Commission questioned the architectural style of the new construction. Dr. Blevins stated the new construction would not be the same as the existing structure. He stated plans would be submitted to the State Historic Commission for review and comment. He stated the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior would be followed. He stated he would not jeopardize the historical status of the existing building. Commissioner Laha questioned if there would be meeting space available for the Neighborhood Association within the buildings. Dr. Blevins stated there would be meeting space available for the Neighborhood Association. Dr. Blevins stated within the MOU there was also a provision that the Neighborhood Association would receive three to five percent of the profits from the operations of the site. There was a general discussion concerning the design of the new building. The Commission questioned if Dr. Blevins was willing to make a part of his application request a requirement that the applicant would submit the plans to the State Historic Commission for review of the design plans prior to construction. Dr. Blevins stated he Was willing to condition the approval on submission of the plans to the State Historic District for review prior to construction. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 12