Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6096-B Staff AnalysisSeptember 14, 2000 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -6096-B NAME: Montessori School - Revised Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 15717 Taylor Loop Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Montessori School PROPOSAL: To revise an existing conditional use permit to add a building containing an activity room, small kitchen, a resources room, and three elementary classrooms; abandon unused utility easements; and increase the maximum capacity of students to 98, on this R-2, Single Family Residential zoned property at 15717 Taylor Loop Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The existing school site is located at the southeast corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed total site would include 0.62 acres of property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It is surrounded by R-2 properties with single family homes to the south, northeast and west. The properties directly across Taylor Loop to the north and adjacent to the east are vacant. The style of the current school building looks like a large house and blends in well with the area. The new proposed metal building unfortunately would not look the same and would have a more institutional look. The school use should remain compatible with the neighborhood, but the building style would not blend in as well. The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6096-B within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: This site contains two existing drives from Taylor Loop Road which form a one way flow and drop off system in the parking lot in front of the building. The applicant wishes to keep those two drives and add a driveway passing in front of the new building and connecting back to the existing parking area along Taylor Loop. The new driveway would be used to drop off the elementary children at the new building and still keep a separate area to drop off the kindergarten children at the current building. A small asphalt area with six additional parking spaces would be added in front of the new building. Public Works believes that the two existing drives onto Taylor Loop should be sufficient. The existing C.U.P. allows the school to have up to 30 kindergarten children with 4 employees, and up to 48 total children from age 3-9. The new building would have 4 elementary classrooms; which are larger than the existing classrooms. Parking for a school is based on 1 space for each employee and each 10 children for kindergarten, and 1 space for each elementary classroom. That would result in a requirement for 13 spaces. Thirteen spaces exist now and 4 new are proposed, which would be 17 -total. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern perimeter. F, September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Taylor Loop is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. b. Montgomery Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. c. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Taylor Loop and Montgomery Road. d. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. e. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. f. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. g. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. h. Taylor Loop has a 1998 average daily traffic count of 1,400. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Contact the Water Works if larger and/or additional water meters are needed. Wastewater: =Sewer available, not adversely affected. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKIA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No affect. Site is not on a dedicated bus route. 3 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested to amend an existing conditional use permit to add a second building to house a gymnasium and 4 classrooms, with a small paved area in front containing 4 parking spaces. Included in the request is an increase in the maximum capacity to 98 children. The Montessori school has existed on this site since August 1996. In April 1998 the Planning Commission approved an amended C.U.P. to raise the student capacity from 30 to 48. That was requested to be able to continue to school the children into the elementary grades. The requests for increased enrollment have continued resulting in this request for more space and increased capacity to 98 students. The new two-story building would contain a small gymnasium, kitchen, and four classrooms. The application includes a request to abandon some unused utility easements in the middle of the school property and replace them with perimeter easements. The utility companies approved the abandonment, but -that request will have to be forwarded to the City Board of Directors for final approval. All siting requirements are met by the proposal. The owner of the property to the southeast has requested that the screening fence adjacent to his property not be required. He wishes the area to be left open so to provide a more open appearance between his house and the new school building, not divided in half by a fence. A waiver or deferral would be required to accommodate the neighbor's request. At the time of this writing, Staff had not received any written confirmation that the resident did not want the screening. The school would maintain a staggered drop off and pick up schedule to minimize traffic congestion. Operating hours are from 7:15 a.m. to about 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. 4 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Staff believes the request is a reasonable use of the property and that it should continue to be compatible with the neighborhood. However, we would encourage the applicant to choose exterior finishes that would blend with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. The issue of the third driveway will need to be resolved by the Commission since Public Works still opposes it. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. b. Comply with Public Works Comments with the driveway issue as decided by the Commission. c. All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed downward and inward to the property and not towards any residential zoned area. If a written request by the neighbor to the immediate south is received stating he does not want a wooden fence screen, between his property and the new church building, then Staff would support that waiver. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (JUNE 1, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Roy West were present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Public Works reviewed their comments and a short discussion occurred regarding the driveways. The Committee asked the applicant to meet with Public Works on the issue. The screening fence on the southeast property line was also discussed and the applicant was instructed to obtain a letter from the neighbor about the fence and the Commission would make a final determination. 5 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 22, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Roy West were present representing the application. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above. Staff noted that the applicant and Public Works had come to an agreement regarding the driveway question and no driveway would be added on Montgomery. In addition, the Commission was informed that Staff had received a letter from the resident adjacent to the southwest corner of the school's property stating that he did not want a screening fence installed between his property and the proposed new school building. Therefore, Staff stated they were in support of the request to waive that screening requirement. The Chair informed the applicant that the Commission was down to eight members present and stated the Commission's policy to offer applicants the opportunity to defer their application since the applicant must obtain positive votes of six of the eight Commissioners present. The applicant chose to proceed. Mrs. Moffett gave a short summary of the school's request and why the additional building was needed. Jim Nettles spoke -in opposition. He stated that the heads of the Heatherbrae and Westchester subdivisions and several people in those neighborhoods told him they did not know of this proposed expansion. He also stated that these same people stated they were not notified when the school was first proposed in 1996. He added that according to his measurement, the Dyer's property at 15800 Taylor Loop Road was 185 feet from the original school site and so they should have been notified of each proposal. He continued by stating that the school added a second driveway since the original construction and felt that permission to do that should have been obtained from the Commission before it occurred. He felt that was a substantial addition to, and violation of, the original permit. He continued by stating his belief that they should have been more involved in the review process and the development of Staff's 2 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B recommendations. In addition, he stated concerns over the increase to 98 students and the construction of the gymnasium. He felt those two factors would increase traffic on Taylor Loop significantly. He stated concern that the traffic would be turning around in the neighbor's driveways and pulling onto neighbor's lawns. More over, he stated he couldn't understand how the Planning Commission in 1998 could approve an amendment to the original C.U.P. without, as he claimed, even the immediate neighbors being notified and having input. Deanna Rust, who lives across Taylor Loop to the northwest of the existing school, also spoke in opposition. She passed out a picture to the Commission showing the view taken from her house looking towards the site. She asked the Commissioners to imagine how a two story "gymnasium" would look on the lot she showed in the picture. She stated that the proposed structure would clash with the residential nature of the area and that schools lower the property values of residences in the area. She explained the concerns she had when she originally moved to this area because of the current school, and why she moved there anyway. She felt that the older children being added to the school would bring more activity, noise and traffic, especial at night, to the area and drastically disrupt the peaceful pace and nature of this neighborhood. She did not want a two-story gymnasium built across for her house. Chairperson Adcock asked the school representatives why she didn't find the names or letters from the immediate neighbors among the support petition and letters. She also stated that she found e-mail letters in support to be worthless and like a chain letter. Therefore, she was discounting those letters. She saw only one letter in support from the immediate neighborhood and that person had a student in the school. Mr. West, from the school, pointed out that there were support letters from all three abutting homeowners and the owner across Taylor Loop to the northeast in the group the Chair had. He also brought to the Chair's attention the support petition with 14 names of people from Taylor Loop and Carter Lane. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Turner, Director of Public Works, if the school would be required to make street improvements along the two street frontages. Mr. Turner replied that they would. Commissioner Rahman received clarification that the two existing driveways would remain, a driveway would not be added onto Montgomery, that the new building was about 5200 square feet, the existing building was about 3800 square feet, and that the property size was 7 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B about 0.63 acres. He then asked how Staff could support the increase in student capacity of what he saw as a commercial business use and he had a problem with the analysis that Staff had provided. He added that if it had outgrown its original authorized space it should move, that the scale was out of proportion, and that the application didn't have any merit. Staff was not given the opportunity to explain its analysis. Commissioner Muse stated that he believed that a healthy neighborhood has an elementary school, usually public, this one happens to be private. He then asked about the exterior of the building. Mr. West stated that the original proposal was brick and Dry -Vit, but that they would be willing to make changes to have it look more like a home. Commissioner Muse stated he would support the proposal if the exterior surface and landscaping were made to blend in with the neighborhood. Mr. West stated they would be glad to do that and that they did already intend to use a shingle roof, not a metal surface roof. Commissioner Lowry received clarification that the school currently has 48 students, their full authorized capacity, and that they did want to raise that maximum capacity to 98, but they do not have 98 already enrolled. He asked Mar. West if he didn't believe that increase would impact the neighborhood. Mr. West said he didn't believe that would because of the staggered drop-off times they used to prevent traffic problems, and that even the noise from the playground is minimal at a Montessori school because of the discipline. Commissioner Nunnley agreed with Commissioner Rahman about the size and asked at what point do we say enough is enough. This started as a small school of 30, went to 48, and now they are asking for 98. He wondered at what point does the Commission say it is time for them to move. He didn't see this as being an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Berry stated that schools do go with neighborhoods and that there are many public schools of a much greater scale in residential neighborhoods along collector streets such as Taylor Loop. He added that this is not in the heart of a residential neighborhood and that schools in neighborhoods are part of city life. He also did not agree that the proposed site was over developed. He said that was looked at during the Subdivision Committee and he felt this was probably an ideal site for a school and the size was fine. He also pointed out that the neighbor most impacted by the new building, the one living 8 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B immediately next to it, not only supported the expansion, but didn't even want a screening fence installed. He continued that if expanding schools aren't located in growing neighborhoods then where do you want them to be. He stated that a school of 98 students is not a large school compared to many of the public schools in Little Rock neighborhoods. He concluded by stating he supported the proposal. He then asked where Mr. Nettles and Ms. Rust lived in relation to the site and that was pointed out on the zoning map in the agenda write-up. It was noted that Mr. Nettles was speaking for Mrs. Dyer and her house was identified. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations. Commissioner Nunnley asked that Commissioner Berry be allowed to finish a point he was trying to make earlier when he was shouted down. He wanted to hear that point. Commissioner Nunnley said that he realized that this was a touchy issue and that he didn't want the Commission to rush to a vote because the hour was late. Chair Adcock called the question and the vote. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 4 nays, Commissioner Nunnley abstained, and 3 absent. Mr. Lawson, Director of Planning and Development asked that the record reflect that he was not allowed to -speak regarding this issue, particularly with regard to Commissioner Rahman's questions regarding Staff's analysis and recommendation. STAFF UPDATE: The Board of Directors reviewed this request on August 15, 2000. Comments were made by Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, to describe what had taken place up to coming before the Board. Director Adcock commented that she had affidavits from six individuals that said they had not been notified of the proposed C.U.P. application and hearing. After a short discussion of what had taken place to date, and brief comments from the applicant and the opposition representative, the Board voted to send the item back to the Planning Commission for rehearing. During the interim a meeting was held between the neighborhood and the applicant to discuss the issue and 0 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B neighborhood concerns. The proposal is basically the same as originally brought before the Commission except that the intended uses and exterior appearance have been clarified and updated for the proposed new building. The revised site plan shows that the new building would contain three classrooms, a small kitchen, a resources room and a 59'x331(1,947 square feet) activity room. The activity room would have one or two basketball goals for play and exercise, but not a regular basketball court, and would not be used for games between other schools. The current proposed exterior includes a mixture of siding and brick. All concerns of Staff have been satisfied. STAFF UPDATED RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation remains to approve the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. b. Comply with Public Works Comments. c. All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed downward and inward to the property and not towards any residential zoned area. Staff has received a written request by the neighbor to the immediate south of the proposed new building stating he does not want a wooden fence screen between his property and the new church building. Therefore, Staff would support that waiver, conditioned on an agreement that if the property is sold and the new owner wishes a screening fence to be installed, that the school do so. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (AUGUST 24, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Randy Frasier, Attorney for the school, were present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed revised site plan. The changes were a slightly different exterior appearance, a clarification of the large room inside as an activity 10 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) room, not a full gymnasium, dropping Road and revising the parking area in building to accommodate not having ac Road. FILE NO.: Z -6096-B access to Montgomery front of the new cess to Montgomery Public Works mentioned that the traffic counts taken since August 1, 2000 were 1440 cars per day on Taylor Loop, and 97 cars per day on Montgomery Road. There being no further new information or questions, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Randy Frazier, attorney for the school, were the primary persons present representing the application. There were two registered supporters and three registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Updated Recommendation," above. Jim Lawson, Little Rock City Director of Planning and Development, updated the Commission that the school and City personnel had met a couple of times with members of the neighborhood, which resulted in the school modifying their application. He suggested the applicant present those changes. Mr. Lawson also stated that as a result of these changes, Staff feels this is a better application than the original one, the building is not as large and many of the concerns of the neighbors had been worked out. Randy Frazier spoke for the applicant. He stated that two meetings were held with neighborhood members, August 28 to which persons on the mailing list and ones they knew were opposed were invited, and September 12 at the request of Deanna Rust. Agreement was reached at the second meeting with Mrs. Rust on ten points requested to be part of the C.U.P conditions. A list of those ten points was distributed to the Commissioners. That concluded the preliminary update comments. 11 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Chair Adcock asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable proceeding in light of these changes presented. The Commissioners agreed they did want to proceed. Commissioner Lowry asked if Staff had a map showing the location of the people currently for and against the proposal. Mr. Lawson stated there was not a current map because it was not clear now who were for or against, other than the few who attended the last meeting and the abutting neighbors. Commissioner Lowry asked about the neighbors that Director Adcock mentioned at the Board meeting and their current position. Mr. Lawson stated that he didn't want to speak for those persons, but one of them was present. He later showed the maps the Staff had created showing those persons on the various petitions and letters that Staff had received that were for or against the proposal, but he reminded the Commission that this information was at least two weeks old. The information had not been updated since the neighborhood meetings had been held because no new information had been received from any neighbors, other than some verbal comments made by those at the two meetings. Mr. Frazier continued with their presentation. He began by distributing to the Commissioners the letter that was distributed in obtaining the names on the opposition petition. He made the point that most people would probably be opposed based on the contents of that letter. He mentioned again the meetings held with the neighborhood, and that he had invited Mr. Jim Nettles, spokesman for the opposition, and the people he represented to both meetings, but Mr. Nettles and most of the people he represented did not attend. He then stated the current facts of what was being requested in this application compared to what wasn't being requested that was stated in Mr. Nettle's letter to the neighborhood. Mr. Frazier stated that the school currently has a total of 71 students, 48 attending at this site and 23 attending at Central Baptist Church school around the corner about two blocks away. The Commission granted a C.U.P. in 1996 for up to 48 students. He then stated he felt the impact of additional traffic would be minimal since the added children is limited to only 78 for the first three years and there are 71 at the two locations now. He again mentioned that the property owners abutting the site are in favor of the proposal and that 12 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Mr. Williams, the most affected, is present in support. His property directly abuts the church site next to where the new building is proposed. Mr. Frazier explained that the new building would contain 6,010 square feet, have a residential look with a sloped shingle roof and wood siding exterior, be compatible with the existing school building, and that the highest point of the building would be 33 feet. It would not be a metal building. It has been scaled down from an earlier proposal of 7,800 square feet. He stated that the purpose of the new building was to move the 23 students now attending Central Baptist and to rearrange functions within the two buildings to better meet the needs of the students. He clarified that the building would not have a gymnasium, but it would have an all-purpose room, which has also been scaled down from 59 feet by 33 feet to 49 feet by 33 feet. It would be used for various internal activities, and may have a basketball goal, but would not be a regular court or be used for games with other schools. He added that the school has agreed to limit night time activities to 5 school wide evening meetings or events a year. He stated that the kitchen would be small and would be used for the purpose of assisting with meals for the students, not cooking and serving meals on a daily basis. -Some days Mrs. Moffett brings in some - food that could be served from the kitchen. Mr. Frazier stated the school would meet the new landscape ordinance requirements everywhere except the west side. There they would meet current landscape requirements. Next, Mr. Frazier explained that there should be only a small impact on traffic by the increase in the number of students. The increase will be gradual and spaced over several years and the staggered start and stop times for the different grades would lessen and spread out the affect. The students would not be driving because they would not be old enough. He concluded by saying that the school feels it has done everything possible to balance providing a good educational environment with the concerns of the neighborhood and that the impacts of the expansion would be minimal and regularly evaluated. Commissioner Nunnley asked if there would be any off site classrooms. Mr. Frazier stated no there would not. 13 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Commissioner Lowry asked if the school reaches its 88 maximum, would they go back to using space at the nearby church. Mr. Frazier said no, that the school agrees to cap their enrollment at 88 and all be located at this school site. Commissioner Lowry also asked why the school couldn't meet the new landscape requirements on the west side of the property. Mr. Frazier answered that the new requirements would eliminate all the parking spaces proposed along that west side. That would negate the school's efforts to keep parking off of Taylor Loop by providing more on site parking. They can meet current landscape and buffer requirements and still provide those spaces as shown in the current request. Commissioner Rahman asked about the Baptist Church school size and about preventing the Montessori School from growing more. Mr. Lawson stated that the church does have an approved school with a maximum of 35 students and that for either of them to increase those maximums, they would have to come back to the Commission. Also, if a neighbor was concerned that either school had violated their maximum enrollment, they should call zoning enforcement and normal enforcement action would be taken to ensure compliance. David Williams spoke in favor of the proposal. He is the owner/occupant of the house which abuts the school property adjacent to where the new building would be located. He stated he bought the property knowing the school was already in place and feels that he couldn't ask for better neighbors, and that Mrs. Moffett has always been very responsive to, and satisfied any concerns he has had. Rudy Bittner also spoke in favor of the proposal for he and his two daughters. He lives across Taylor Loop Road, northeast of the school. He added that one daughter lives directly across from the school and the other daughter is planning to build a house also across the street from the school. He stated that the school is quiet and his wife who is home most of the day has never heard any noise from the school that has upset her and is very pleased with the school. He said he thought the new building would be attractive and improve the property. 14 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Mr. Frazier presented a petition of names in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jim Nettles began the presentation in opposition. He asked if he could have an extra ten minutes to respond to the changes in the application proposed by the applicant. Chair Adcock said the opposition would have 20 minutes, and based on the fact that there were 3 persons that wanted to speak in opposition with equal time, the Chair stated that each would have about 6 1-� minutes. Mr. Nettles said there was no way he could present all that he felt the Commission would want to know with only 20 minutes to do it. So he would try to hit the highlights. He began by referring to the size of the two buildings, about 10,000 square feet, being placed on less than the 2/3 of an acre of land. His next point was that at the June Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated they had 48 students at this site, but today they stated they have 71 counting the 48 at this site and 23 at the Baptist Church. Mr. Nettles felt the school was deceiving the Commission about the enrollment numbers. He continued with reference to other statements made at the June meeting which he felt were misleading about the surrounding structures and that the way the location was described was an attempt to make it sound like it was way out in the country. He then referred to comments made by the City Engineer in March of 1996 regarding the need to redesign stormwater detention due to the change in runoff from the designed facilities. The next point made by Mr. Nettles was that the school had never dedicated any of the required right-of-way before doing any construction. Another point made by Mr. Nettles was that there were about 24 trips per day by school buses on Taylor Loop Road and that the corner of Montgomery and Taylor Loop Roads was a school bus pick up point. He then referred to a picture showing that the view was obstructed coming towards that intersection traveling west. Mr. Nettle's time expired. Commissioner Downing asked Mr. Nettles where his residence was so he could understand his standing relative to this development. Mr. Nettles stated he is at 15808 Taylor Loop Road more than anywhere else, but his furniture is at 4710 Sam Peck Road. 04•.1 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Nettles to state his top five reasons why this proposal should not be approved. Mr. Nettles listed the following: 1) 18 stops a day made by school buses and six per day for handicapped children on Taylor Loop Road; 2)one half block away lives an elderly senior citizen, single mother of three adult children, who walk along Taylor Loop Road every day and he is concerned for them if traffic increases; 3)that the Montessori School has built on property they don't own; 4)he feels the development density is unacceptable; and 5) the water problem is horrendous. Commission Lowry commented to Mr. Nettles that he was bothered by the fact that he didn't include in his top five reasons for disapproval the neighborhood concern. Commissioner Lowry said that was the most important to him. Deanna Rust spoke next in opposition. She acknowledged the school had submitted compromises in an attempt to mitigate the problems caused by the proposed expansion. She stated that she still had suspicions about the proposal due to the short, infrequent meetings held with the Moffetts and statements made in the original C.U.P. proposal. She continued that she felt that many of the statements she had read or heard were misleading or confusing. She stated that she was still opposed to the school's expansion, although happier due to the compromises made by the school. She still preferred no building be placed on the site. She felt that proper notification was not accomplished, that inaccurate statements were made in the write-up regarding the location of nearby structures across Taylor Loop. She was unclear about, and uncomfortable with, the changing site plan and number of students. She felt Mr. Williams was in favor of the proposal because in her opinion the arrangement of omitting the privacy fence would enhance his property because of the maintained green area between the new building and his house. The building would then be less of an impact on him than the rest of the neighbors. She referred to a statement that she said Mrs. Moffett made, that she likes to go home at 3:00. She felt that statement was a misleading attempt to say that everything shuts down at 3 p.m., but the school is actually open until 6 p.m. She felt that many of the statements made by school officials were a little twisted, misleading, and not forthright. She 16 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6096-B had also heard statements that the proposed site was unsuitable for a house and she couldn't understand how it could be unsuitable for a house, but suitable for the proposed school building. She still has the unsettling feeling that maybe she still hasn't been told everything, that there may be more surprises later. She asked for assurances that "all the cards are on the table" when a vote is made. She wasn't confident that they were. She stated that she was "dismayed that people charged with teaching our children would accept and even encourage this sort of behavior". William Bruton spoke in opposition. Commissioner Nunnley asked to be shown where he and Ms. Rust lived. He stated that he had never been notified about any school proposed, original or expansions, on this site. He continued by explaining that when the school filled in the current site proposed, it greatly increased the flooding on the property on the north side of Taylor Loop. He stated that area served as a natural detention for the runoff before it continued under Taylor Loop and onto the properties to the north, including his. Since that is gone, flooding occurs frequently. He asked that the current problems be resolved before any more expansion be allowed. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, the 10 points agreed to at the meeting with the neighbors on September 12, and to include a recommendation to waive the screening requirement between the proposed building and the property to the south. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 nays and 0 absent. 17 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Montessori School - Revised Conditional Use Permit 15717 Taylor Loop Road Montessori School To revise an existing conditional use permit to add a building containing a gym, small kitchen, and four elementary classrooms; abandon unused utility easements, and increase the maximum capacity of students to 98, on this R-2, Single Family Residential zoned property at 15717 Taylor Loop Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The existing school site is located at the southeast corner of Taylor Loop Road and Montgomery Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed total site would include 0.62 acres of property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It is surrounded by R-2 properties with single family homes to the south, northeast and west. The properties directly across Taylor Loop to the north and adjacent to the east are vacant. The style of the current school building looks like a large house and blends in well with the area. The new proposed metal building unfortunately would not look the same and would have a more institutional look. The school use should remain compatible with the neighborhood, but the building style would not blend in as well. The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: This site contains two existing drives from Taylor Loop Road which form a one way flow and drop off system in the parking lot in front of the building. The applicant wishes to keep those two drives and add one driveway from Montgomery passing in front of the new building and connecting to the existing parking area along Taylor Loop. The new driveway would be used to drop off the elementary children at the new building and still keep a separate area to drop off the kindergarten children at the current building. A small asphalt area with four additional parking spaces would be added in front of the new building. Public Works believes that the two existing drives onto Taylor Loop should be sufficient, and that the driveway in front of the new building connecting to Montgomery should be eliminated. The existing C.U.P. allows the school to have up to 30 kindergarten children with 4 employees, and up to 48 total children from age 3-9. The new building would have 4 elementary classrooms, which are larger than the existing classrooms. Parking for a school is based on 1 space for each employee and each 10 children for kindergarten, and 1 space for each elementary classroom. That would result in a requirement for 13 spaces. Thirteen spaces exist now and 4 new are proposed, which would be 17 total. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern perimeter. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Taylor Loop is listed on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. b. Montgomery Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. c. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required 2 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) at the corner of Taylor Loop and Montgomery Road. d. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. e. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Eliminate one driveway. f. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. g. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. h. Taylor Loop has a 1998 average daily traffic count of 1,400. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Contact the Water Works if larger and/or additional water meters are needed. Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No affect. Site is not on a dedicated bus route. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested to amend an existing conditional use permit to add a second building to house a gymnasium and 4 classrooms, with a small paved area in front containing 4 parking spaces. Included in the request is an increase in the maximum capacity to 98 children. The Montessori school has existed on this site since August 1996. In April 1998 the Planning Commission approved an amended C.U.P. to raise the student capacity from 30 to 48. That was requested to be able to continue to school the children into the elementary grades. The requests for increased enrollment have continued resulting in this request for more space and increased capacity to 98 students. 3 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) The new two-story building would contain a small gymnasium, kitchen, and four classrooms. The application includes a request to abandon some unused utility easements in the middle of the school property and replace them with perimeter easements. The utility companies approved the abandonment, but that request will have to be forwarded to the City Board of Directors for final approval. All siting requirements are met by the proposal. The owner of the property to the southeast has requested that the screening fence adjacent to his property not be required. He wishes the area to be left open so to provide a more open appearance between his house and the new school building, not divided in half by a fence. A waiver or deferral would be required to accommodate the neighbor's request. At the time of this writing, Staff had not received any written confirmation that the resident did not want the screening. The school would maintain a staggered drop off and pick up schedule to minimize traffic congestion. Operating hours are from 7:15 a.m. to about 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Staff believes the request is a reasonable use of the property and that it should continue to be compatible with the neighborhood. However, we would encourage the applicant to choose exterior finishes that would blend with the neighborhood to the greatest extent possible. The issue of the third driveway will need to be resolved by the Commission since Public Works still opposes it. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. b. Comply with Public Works Comments with the driveway issue as decided by the Commission. c. All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed downward and inward to the property and not towards any residential zoned area. If a written request by the neighbor to the immediate south is received stating he does not want a wooden fence screen, between his property and the new church building, then Staff would support that waiver. 4 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (JUNE 1, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Roy West were present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Public Works reviewed their comments and a short discussion occurred regarding the driveways. The Committee asked the applicant to meet with Public Works on the issue. The screening fence on the southeast property line was also discussed and the applicant was instructed to obtain a letter from the neighbor about the fence and the Commission would make a final determination. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 22, 2000) Dorothy Moffett, school Director, and Roy West were present representing the application. There were two registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above including the modifications in the balance of this paragraph. Staff noted that the applicant and Public Works had come to an agreement regarding the driveway question and no driveway would be added on Montgomery. In addition, the Commission was informed that Staff had received a letter from the resident adjacent to the southwest corner of the school's property stating that he did not want a screening fence installed between his property and the proposed new school building. Therefore, Staff stated they were in support of the request to waive that screening requirement. The Chair informed the applicant that the Commission was down to eight members present and stated the Commission's policy to offer applicants the opportunity to defer their application since the applicant must obtain positive votes of six of the eight Commissioners present. The applicant chose to proceed. Mrs. Moffett gave a short summary of the school's request and why the additional building was needed. Jim Nettles spoke in opposition. He stated that the heads of the Heatherbrae and Westchester subdivisions and several people in those neighborhoods told him they did not know of this proposed expansion. He also stated that these same people stated they were not notified when the school was first proposed in 1996. He 5 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) added that according to his measurement, the Dyer's property at 15800 Taylor Loop Road was 185 feet from the original school site and so they should have been notified of each proposal. He continued by stating that the school added a second driveway since the original construction and felt that permission for that addition should have been obtained from the Commission before it occurred. He felt that was a substantial addition to, and violation of, the original permit. He continued by stating his belief that they should have been more involved in the review process and the development of Staff's recommendations. In addition, he stated concerns over the increase to 98 students and the construction of the gymnasium. He felt those two factors would increase traffic on Taylor Loop significantly. He stated concern that the traffic would be turning around in the neighbor's driveways and pulling onto neighbor's lawns. More over, he stated he couldn't understand how the Planning Commission in 1998 could approve an amendment to the original C.U.P. without, as he claimed, even the immediate neighbors being notified and having input. Deanna Rust, who lives across Taylor Loop to the northwest of the existing school, also spoke in opposition. She passed out a picture to the Commission showing the view taken from her house looking towards the site. She asked the Commissioners to imagine how a two story "gymnasium" would look on the lot she showed in the picture. She stated that the proposed structure would clash with the residential nature of the area and that schools lower the property values of residences in the area. She explained the concerns she had when she originally moved to this area because of the current school, and why she moved there anyway. She felt that the older children being added to the school would bring more activity, noise and traffic, especial at night, to the area and drastically disrupt the peaceful pace and nature of this neighborhood. She did not want a two-story gymnasium built across from her house. Chairperson Adcock asked the school representatives why she didn't find the names or letters from the immediate neighbors among the support petition and letters. She also stated that she found e-mail letters in support to be worthless and like a chain letter. Therefore, she was discounting those letters. She saw only one letter in support from the immediate neighborhood and that person had a student in the school. Mr. West, from the school, pointed out that there were support letters from all three abutting homeowners and the owner across Taylor Loop to the northeast in the group the Chair had. He also brought to the Chair's attention the support petition with 14 names of people from Taylor Loop and Carter Lane. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Turner, Director of Public Works, if the school would be required to make street improvements along the two street frontages. Mr. Turner replied that they would. Commissioner Rahman received clarification that the two existing driveways would remain, a driveway would not be added onto Montgomery, that the new building was about 5200 square 6 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont.) feet, the existing building was about 3800 square feet, and that the property size was about 0.63 acres. He then asked how Staff could support the increase in student capacity of what he saw as a commercial business use, and he had a problem with the analysis that Staff had provided. He added that if the school had outgrown its original authorized space it should move, that the scale was out of proportion, and that the application didn't have any merit. Staff was not given the opportunity to respond and explain its analysis. Commissioner Muse stated that he believed that a healthy neighborhood has an elementary school, usually public, this one happens to be private. He then asked about the exterior of the building. Mr. West stated that the original proposal was brick and Dry -Vit with a metal roof, but that they would be willing to make changes to have it look more like a home. Commissioner Muse stated he would support the proposal if the exterior surface and landscaping were made to blend in with the neighborhood. Mr. West stated they would be glad to do that and that they did already intend to use a shingle roof, not a metal surface roof. Commissioner Lowry received clarification that the school currently has 48 students, their full authorized capacity, and that they wanted to raise that maximum capacity to 98, but they do not have 98 enrolled. He asked Mr. West if he didn't believe that increase would impact the neighborhood. Mr. West said he didn't believe that it would because of the staggered drop-off times they used to prevent traffic problems, and that even the noise from the playground is minimal at a Montessori school because of the discipline. Commissioner Nunnley agreed with Commissioner Rahman about the size and asked at what point do we say enough is enough. This started as a small school of 30, went to 48, and now they are asking for 98. He wondered at what point does the Commission say it is time for them to move. He didn't see this as being an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Berry stated that schools do go with neighborhoods and that there are many public schools of a much greater scale in residential neighborhoods along collector streets such as Taylor Loop. He added that this is not in the heart of a residential neighborhood and that schools in neighborhoods are part of city life. He also did not agree that the proposed site was over developed. He said that was looked at during the review by the Subdivision Committee and he felt this was probably an ideal site for a school and the size was fine. He also pointed out that the neighbor most impacted by the new building, the one living immediately next to it, not only supported the expansion, but didn't even want a screening fence installed. He continued that if expanding schools aren't located in growing neighborhoods then where do you want them to be. He stated that a school of 98 students is not a large school compared to many of the public schools in Little Rock neighborhoods. He concluded by stating he supported the proposal. He then asked where 7 FILE NO.: Z -6096-B (Cont. Mr. Nettles and Ms. Rust lived in relation to the site. It was noted that Mr. Nettles was speaking for Mrs. Dyer and her house was identified along with Ms. Rust's house, to the north, northwest of the school. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations. Commissioner Nunnley asked that Commissioner Berry be allowed to finish a point he was trying to make earlier when he was shouted down. He wanted to hear that point. Commissioner Nunnley said that he realized that this was a touchy issue and that he didn't want the Commission to rush to a vote because the hour was late. Chair Adcock called the question and the vote. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 4 nays, Commissioner Nunnley abstained, and 3 absent. Mr. Lawson, Director of Planning and Development asked that the record reflect that he was not allowed to speak regarding this issue, particularly with regard to Commissioner Rahman's questions regarding Staff's analysis and recommendation. 8