Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7107 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7107 NAME: Center for Healing Hearts and Spirits Short -Form PD -0 LOCATION: 2416 South Chester Street nEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joyce Rayner Troy Laha P.O. Box 661 6202 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 0.16+ Acre CURRENT ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-4 two-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Single-family and two-family residences. PROPOSED ZONING: PD -0 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: PROPOSED USE: Office None requested. The applicant proposes to rezone the property located at 2416 S. Chester Street from R-4 two-family to PD -0 to utilize the existing single-family residential structure as an office to provide education and referral services to clients. The office staff will administer a community awareness program for victims and family of victims of violent crimes and terminal illnesses. The property will not provide housing for any clients, but will be utilized as office space only. The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. There will be 2.5 individuals employed by the Center. Volunteer services will also be utilized in providing services. Parking will FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) be accessed via the alley. Because most services provided by the Center will be on an individual basis in-house, via telephone, off-site counseling, off-site home visitations and minimal group sessions (3-6 individuals), traffic in and out of the property will be minimal. This single -use PD -0 is for this use only and will not be transferable to any other use. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an exiting, vacant, single-family structure. The area is in the path of the tornado and is characterized by the large number of vacant lots and homes in disrepair or, in some cases, new construction of homes. There are three vacant lots to the north of the site, and one to the south. The four lots directly across the street are also vacant. There is a new duplex located on the northwest corner of S. Chester Street and Roosevelt Road. The area to the west of the site is predominately single- family with the exception of a duplex located directly behind the proposed site. The lot slopes downward from S. Chester Street to the rear. There is an existing parking pad, which extends from S. Chester Street along the north side of the house. The lot has been raised and leveled mid -way back with a significant grade change to the alley. There is a three-foot retaining wall separating the grade change with a large mature tree located on the high side of the grade change. In addition, there are the remnants of an out building located on the back property line. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two informational calls concerning this application. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Downtown Neighborhood Association, Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association, Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association and Southend Neighborhood Developers were notified of the Public Hearing. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Con*-.) D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Enter Approved as submitted. ARKLA: No comment received. Rn„+-hwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. Count Plannin : No comment received. LATA: Project site is located near Bus Routes #2 and #15 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan indicates Single -Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Office for a non-profit educational and referral organization. The property is currently zoned R-4 two-family. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The area lies in the Downtown Neighborhoods Action Plan area. There are three (3) statements mentioned in the plan which are related to this activity. Increase small 3 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Coni. business development. Promote re -use of 64 properties unsold at delinquent tax auctions, whose back taxes totaled $175,000 in a check of records held by the Arkansas Land Commissioner. The Housing Goal supports the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing to create a diverse and demographically representative neighborhood to provide a feeling of security in the area and spur economic development. Landscape Issues: A minimum 6.7 -foot wide land use buffer is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site by the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape ordinance also requires the same minimum 6.7 -foot wide landscape strip north and south of the new vehicular use area. The plan submitted does not comply with these requirements. Buildin Codes: 1. Add a handicap ramp (suggested placement in the front) to allow for accessibility with a minimum slope of 1 and 12. 2. Designate the front driveway as a handicap space with a minimum width of 16 feet. 3. One interior restroom should comply with ADA requirements. 4. The applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for these and other interior remodels. Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for details. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 25, 2001) Ms. Joyce Rayner and Mr. Troy Laha were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed PD -O. Staff noted that additional notes needed to be shown on the site plan. Staff also indicated the desire for the structure to remain residential in character. Staff suggested the applicant move the parking to the rear and be accessed by the alley. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. Laha indicated he would work with Public Works on these issues. Landscaping requirements were discussed. Staff indicated a minimum of 6.7 -foot wide landscape strip along the north and south property lines would be required which was not indicated on the site plan. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. After consideration, it was determined the extension of screening beyond the rear of the structure was not in keeping with the landscaping in the area and would change the character of the structure. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PD -O to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on October 30, 2001. The revised site plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The landscaped areas are shown on the site plan along with the proposed signage. The applicant proposes a 3 foot by 3 foot ground mounted sign in the front yard area. This conforms to the ordinance requirements for office signage. Staff is agreeable with the sign as proposed. The revised site plan also shows the areas of landscaping upgrades as required in paragraph F. of this report. A 6.5 foot landscape strip of shrubs will be put into place for screening adjacent to the vehicular parking area on the north and south property lines to the rear of building. Staff feels the applicant has done an above average job in addressing the site design issues associated with this property, given the fact that the property is very small in size. The desire is for the site to remain residential in character, which the applicant has accomplished by accessing parking from the alley. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the PD -O. The proposed PD -O zoning should have no adverse impact on the general area. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -0 rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 2001) The applicant was present. There were seven objectors present. The item was discussed concurrently with Item # 8, LU01-08-03, a Land Use Plan amendment. Staff presented the proposed plan amendment. Staff then presented the PZD and recommended approval subject to compliance with the Conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Ms. Joyce Raynor indicated the property would be used solely as an office use. She stated the program was to provide education and referral to victims of violent crimes and terminal illnesses; this site would not house clients; they will be going out more than clients will be coming in; and identifying services for clients was the primary function of the Center. Ms. Leta Anthony, Co-founder and President of the Women's Council of African American Affairs, stated services are not available to the under served citizens of the community. She stated the reason these centers are located in neighborhoods is because that is where the needs are and the underserved community does not know where to go to get these services. Ms. Anthony stated the Center will serve as a clearinghouse to match clients to services and the physical location is solely to have an address to provide services, which have been taking place in members' homes. She stated she saw this as an opportunity to serve the human capital. Mr. Harold Sanders spoke in opposition. He stated he has lived in the area for several years and has made a significant investment in the area. He stated he has constructed a duplex located on the corner of Roosevelt Road and Chester Street. He also stated he has a home based business but from the neighborhood it appears residential because there is no traffic to his business. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) Mr. Tommy Brown spoke in opposition. He indicated his support for Ms. Raynor and her objective but felt the use was not conducive to the neighborhood. He felt there were areas, which could be used for this activity and would not be in residential neighborhoods. He stated the alley has suspect activity and additional traffic into the alley would create more problems. Erma Hendrix also spoke in opposition to the proposal and voiced the following concerns: The applicant does not live in the area and the residents question why they chose not to put the project in their area; The Board Members contacted which were listed on the letterhead knew nothing about the project; The letter sent to residents inferred the Police Department was in cooperation. Ms. Hendrix stated she had visited with the Office of the Police Chief and there is no record of the commitment from their _ Department. Ms. Hendrix also had a letter from a State Legislator in opposition to the project. She stated the group never visited with the neighbors. Ms. Hendrix stated a concern about who was to receive the certified notices and many did not get the notices but did a get notice from staff. She stated she was grateful to Quapaw Quarter and Capitol Zoning for their letters in support of preserving the neighborhood. Ms. Hendrix presented petitions with signatures of persons in the neighborhood who oppose the project at this location. Ms. Louise Bullocks addressed the Commission and indicated she had lived in the area for over 75 years. She stated the neighborhood has been coming back and there are still things in the neighborhood, which are not great, but bringing this element into the neighborhood could have a negative impact. Bishop L. T. Walker stated he has been moved two times as a result of Philander Smith College. He stated he moved to 2315 Chester Street and it appears this will require him to move once again. He stated he has lived in the city for 81 years and he would like to see the neighborhood preserved. Lee Hill spoke in opposition to the application. He stated he would be directly affected by the project since his house is located adjacent to the alley going southbound which will be utilized to access the parking area. He stated this is not the proper place to locate this activity. Mr. Hill stated there is a problem in that the applicant did not meet with the neighborhood prior to the submission of the application and traffic safety, ingress and egress are a concern. Mr. Hill stated the alley to Roosevelt Road is extremely dangerous. Mr. Hill provided pictures to the Commission indicating the sight distance problems at the intersection. Mr. Hill indicated a lot 7 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) of funds had been spent on rehabilitation of homes after the tornado. Back to traffic he said, there is a no left turn on Chester Street at Roosevelt Road and a check with AHTD indicated 15,000 cars per day on Roosevelt Road. He stated he wanted to preserve the residential character of the area and the use would be better served by placing the Center in a commercially zoned area of the city. Phyllis Brown, an employee of the City of Little Rock in the 911 -call center, spoke in opposition of the application. She stated the Police Department has a victim's services division, which reaches out to everyone regardless of color who has been a victim of crime. She stated education is also offered through the Police Department and for treatment of terminal illnesses, there is Hospis, Hospitals and Churches that can reach out to - people who need services. She stated she did not want to see a parking lot or a marquee when leaving her home reminding her that this was not a residential use. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Hendrix the number of signatures on the petition. She stated between 75 and 100. Commissioner Lowry then asked the feeling of the neighborhood. She stated they were against the location and that was the reason the residents signed the petition. Commissioner Nunnley questioned Ms. Raynor as to the rational behind picking this location. She stated the Council had been looking for over two years for a house to locate the facility. She contacted someone in the area who owned property and asked if he knew of a location. He indicated this site was available and he would donate a portion of the property value to the council. Ms. Raynor also addressed the question of notification indicating she notified property owners within two -hundred feet as required and all the neighborhood associations in the area giving the purpose of the Center and the services provided and a phone number for anyone to call with questions. She stated only one person had called with questions. She also stated not everyone "picked -up" his or her notices from the Post Office. Commissioner Muse questioned the statement in the staff write-up concerning the Downtown Neighborhoods Action Plan with regard to Economic Development. Walter Malone, of the Planning Staff, indicated small business development in the area was not specified. He noted through out the area there were numerous non-residential structures, which were identified and in his opinion, those structures would be the neighborhood's first 8 FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) choice for non-residential activities. He stated there was a desire to increase the number of residences in the area, which would indicate they would not be in favor of converting a residential structure into a non-residential use. Commissioner Berry questioned Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, regarding the street width in the area. Mr. Turner stated the width was a standard four -lane roadway. Mr. Turner agreed there was a sight distance problem on Chester Street at Roosevelt Road. Mr. Turner also stated it was deemed advisable to use the alleyway to keep traffic off Chester Street. There was a lengthy discussion concerning if the two parties could work through the issues and come to an agreement on how the two could locate together. Ms. Anthony stated her group, would be willing to meet with the neighborhood and try to reach a compromise. Ms. Hendrix stated her group would be willing to assist with finding a new location but not for the Center to locate in the area. Commissioner Downing asked Ms. Raynor the type corporation and funding mechanisms the Center operated under. Ms. Raynor stated the Center was a 501 c 3 corporation and the Center operates on donations from individuals. In the future, she stated, the Center will apply for grants to assist in operations. Ms. Raynor stated location was important for staff to get to the victims, but the facility was for an administrative office only. Ms. Raynor stated the Center has been in existence for three years operating from member's homes. She stated the Center was not modeled from any other program she was aware of. Commissioner Nunnley stated a concern of the lack of communication between the neighbors and the applicant and stated he saw preservation of neighborhoods as a key component of the City. Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning Staff, indicated there were four to five structures which were "gone" as a result of the tornado. He stated the map in the package did not indicate this and it appeared there were more structures in the area than are in fact there. In the future, he stated, staff will indicate the structures which are no longer there by "x-ing" through the non- existent structures. Chairman Downing stated two years ago the Commission spoke of mixed-use developments and urban sprawl. He questioned how the neighborhood was being destroyed with the placement of an office in the area. He stated the office would be used for E FILE NO.: Z-7107 (Cont.) administrative purposes only. He stated not allowing infill development would further urban sprawl. Chairman Downing stated if the sign is the issue, then remove the sign. Mr. Lawson stated the key to smart growth is to revitalize areas in ways that could convert back to single-family. He stated that through the PD -O the City can support the application and begin to revitalize the area. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Raynor if she could limit the number of employees to three, remove the sign, offer no client group counseling on the premise, only offer client in -take services, end hours at the Center at 5:00 pm and have no one coming into the Center for counseling. Ms. Raynor agreed to these conditions. Commissioner Lowry made the motion to approve the Land Use application as filed, Item #8. The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry made the motion to approve Item #8.1 the PD -O request as filed including staff comments and recommendations including limiting the number of employees to three, removing the sign as agreed to by the applicant and that there be no in house group counseling as agreed to by the applicant. The vote passed 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Norm Floyd and Obray Nunnley). 10 November 15, 2001 ITEM NO.: 8.1 FILE NO.: Z-7107 NAME: Center for Healing Hearts and Spirits Short -Form PD -O LOCATION: 2416 South Chester Street DEVELOPER: Joyce Rayner P.O. Box 661 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: Troy Laha 6202 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 0.16+ Acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-4 two-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family and two-family residences. PROPOSED ZONING: PD -O PROPOSED USE: Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes -to rezone the property located at 2416 S. Chester Street from R-4 two-family to PD -O to utilize the existing single-family residential structure as an office to provide education and referral services to clients. The office staff will administer a community awareness program for victims and family of victims of violent crimes and terminal illnesses. The property will not provide housing for any clients, but will be utilized as office space only. The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. There will be 2.5 individuals employed by the Center. Volunteer services November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 will also be utilized in providing services. Parking will be accessed via the alley. Because most services provided by the Center will be on an individual basis in-house, via telephone, off-site counseling, off-site home visitations and minimal group sessions (3-6 individuals), traffic in and out of the property will be minimal. This single -use PD -O is for this use only and will not be transferable to any other use. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an exiting, vacant, single-family structure. The area is in the path of the tornado and is characterized by the large number of vacant lots and homes in disrepair or, in some cases, new construction of homes. There are three vacant lots to the north of the site and one to the south. The four lots directly across the street are also vacant. There is a new duplex located on the northwest corner of S. Chester Street and Roosevelt Road. The area to the west of the site is predominately single- family with the exception of a duplex located directly behind the proposed site. The lot slopes downward from S. Chester Street to the rear. There is an existing parking pad, which extends from S. Chester Street along the north side of the house. The lot has been raised and leveled mid -way back with a significant grade change to the alley. There is a three-foot retaining wall separating the grade change with a large mature tree located on the high side of the grade change. In addition, there are the remnants of an out building located on the back property line. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received two informational calls concerning this application. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Downtown Neighborhood Association, Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association, Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association and Southend Neighborhood Developers were notified of the Public Hearing. 2 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: Z-7107 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Plannin : No comment received. CATA: Project site is located near Bus Routes #2 and #15 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: The request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan indicates Single -Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Office for a non-profit educational and referral organization. The property is currently zoned R-4 two-family. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda. 3 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 City Reco nized Neighborhood Action Plan: The area lies in the Downtown Neighborhoods Action Plan area. There are three (3) statements mentioned in the plan which are related to this activity. Increase small business development. Promote re -use of 64 properties unsold at delinquent tax auctions, whose back taxes totaled $175,000 in a check of records held by the Arkansas Land Commissioner. The Housing Goal supports the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing to create a diverse and demographically representative neighborhood to provide a feeling of security in the area and spur economic development. Landsc,, le Issues: A minimum 6.7 -foot wide land use buffer is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site by the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape ordinance also requires the same minimum 6.7 -foot wide landscape strip north and south of the new vehicular use area. The plan submitted does not comply with these requirements. Building Codes: 1. Add a handicap ramp (suggested placement in the front) to allow for accessibility with a minimum slope of 1 and 12. 2. Designate the front driveway as a handicap space with a minimum width of 16 feet. 3. One interior restroom should comply with ADA requirements. 4. The applicant will be required to obtain a building permit for these and other interior remodels. Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for details. A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. 4 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 25, 2001) Ms. Joyce Rayner and Mr. Troy Laha were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed PD -O. Staff noted that additional notes needed to be shown on the site plan. Staff also indicated the desire for the structure to remain residential in character. Staff suggested the applicant move the parking to the rear and be accessed by the alley. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Mr. Laha indicated he would work with Public Works on these issues. Landscaping requirements were discussed. Staff indicated a minimum of 6.7 -foot wide landscape strip along the north and south property lines would be required which was not indicated on the site plan. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. After consideration, it was determined the extension of screening beyond the rear of the structure was not in keeping with the landscaping in the area and would change the character of the structure. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PD -O to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on October 30, 2001. The revised site plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The landscaped areas are shown on the site plan along with the proposed signage. The applicant proposes a 3 foot by 3 foot ground mounted sign in the front yard area. This conforms to the ordinance requirements for office signage. Staff is agreeable with the sign as proposed. The revised site plan also shows the areas of landscaping upgrades as required in paragraph F. of this report. A 6.5 5 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7107 foot landscape strip of shrubs will be put into place for screening adjacent to the vehicular parking area on the north and south property lines to the rear of building. Staff feels the applicant has done an above average job in addressing the site design issues associated with this property, given the fact that the property is very small in size. The desire is for the site to remain residential in character, which the applicant has accomplished by accessing parking from the alley. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the PD -O. The proposed PD -0 zoning should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -0 rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 2001) The applicant was present. There were seven objectors present. The item was discussed concurrently with Item # 8, LU01-08-03, a Land Use Plan amendment. Staff presented the proposed plan amendment. Staff then presented the PZD and recommended approval subject to compliance with the Conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Ms. Joyce Raynor indicated the property would be used solely as an office use. She stated the program was to provide education and referral to victims of violent crimes and terminal illnesses; this site would not house clients; they will be going out more than clients will be coming in; and identifying services for clients was the primary function of the Center. Ms. Leta Anthony, Co-founder and President of the Women's Council of African American Affairs, stated services are not P November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 available to the under served citizens of the community. She stated the reason these centers are located in neighborhoods is because that is where the needs are and the underserved community does not know where to go to get these services. Ms. Anthony stated the Center will serve as a clearinghouse to match clients to services and the physical location is solely to have an address to provide services, which have been taking place in members' homes. She stated she saw this as an opportunity to serve the human capital. Mr. Harold Sanders spoke in opposition. He stated he has lived in the area for several years and has made a significant investment in the area. He stated he has constructed a duplex located on the corner of Roosevelt Road and Chester Street. He also stated he has a home based business but from the neighborhood it appears residential because there is no traffic to his business. Mr. Tommy Brown spoke in opposition. He indicated his support for Ms. Raynor and her objective but felt the use was not conducive to the neighborhood. He felt there were areas, which could be used for this activity and would not be in residential neighborhoods. He stated the alley has suspect activity and additional traffic into the alley would create more problems. Erma Hendrix also spoke in opposition to the proposal and voiced the following concerns: The applicant does not live in the area and the residents question why they chose not to put the project in their area; The Board Members contacted which were listed on the letterhead knew nothing about the project; The letter sent to residents inferred the Police Department was in cooperation. Ms. Hendrix stated she had visited with the Office of the Police Chief and there is no record of the commitment from their Department. Ms. Hendrix also had a letter from a State Legislator in opposition to the project. She stated the group never visited with the neighbors. Ms. Hendrix stated a concern about who was to receive the certified notices and many did not get the notices but did a get notice from staff. She stated she was grateful to Quapaw Quarter and Capitol Zoning for their letters in support of preserving the neighborhood. Ms. Hendrix presented petitions with signatures of persons in the neighborhood who oppose the project at this location. Ms. Louise Bullocks addressed the Commission and indicated she had lived in the area for over 75 years. She stated the 7 November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7107 neighborhood has been coming back and there are still things in the neighborhood, which are not great, but bringing this element into the neighborhood could have a negative impact. Bishop L. T. Walker stated he has been moved two times as a result of Philander Smith College. He stated he moved to 2315 Chester Street and it appears this will require him to move once again. He stated he has lived in the city for 81 years and he would like to see the neighborhood preserved. Lee Hill spoke in opposition to the application. He stated he would be directly affected by the project since his house is located adjacent to the alley going southbound which will be utilized to access the parking area. He stated this is not the proper place to locate this activity. Mr. Hill stated there is a problem in that the applicant did not meet with the neighborhood prior to the submission of the application and traffic safety, ingress and egress are a concern. Mr. Hill stated the alley to Roosevelt Road is extremely dangerous. Mr. Hill provided pictures to the Commission indicating the sight distance problems at the intersection. Mr. Hill indicated a lot of funds had been spent on rehabilitation of homes after the tornado. Back to traffic he said, there is a no left turn on Chester Street at Roosevelt Road and a check with AHTD indicated 15,000 cars per day on Roosevelt Road. He stated he wanted to preserve the residential character of the area and the use would be better served by placing the Center in a commercially zoned area of the city. Phyllis Brown, an employee of the City of Little Rock in the 911 -call center, spoke in opposition of the application. She stated the Police Department has a victim's services division, which reaches out to everyone regardless of color who has been a victim of crime. She stated education is also offered through the Police Department and for treatment of terminal illnesses, there is Hospis, Hospitals and Churches that can reach out to people who need services. She stated she did not want to see a parking lot or a marquee when leaving her home reminding her that this was not a residential use. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Hendrix the number of signatures on the petition. She stated between 75 and 100. Commissioner Lowry then asked the feeling of the neighborhood. She stated they were against the location and that was the reason the residents signed the petition. 8 -November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: � Z-7107 Commissioner Nunnley questioned Ms. Raynor as to the rational behind picking this location. She stated the Council had been looking for over two years for a house to locate the facility. She contacted someone in the area who owned property and asked if he knew of a location. He indicated this site was available and he would donate a portion of the property value to the council. Ms. Raynor also addressed the question of notification indicating she notified property owners within two -hundred feet as required and all the neighborhood associations in the area., giving the purpose of the Center and the services provided and a phone number for anyone to call with questions. She stated only one person had called with questions. She also stated not everyone "picked -up" his or her notices from the Post Office. Commissioner Muse questioned the statement in the staff write-up concerning the Downtown Neighborhoods Action Plan with regard to Economic Development. Walter Malone, of the Planning Staff, indicated small business development in the area was not specified. He noted through out the area there were numerous non-residential structures, which were identified and in his opinion, those structures would be the neighborhood's first choice for non-residential activities. He stated there was a desire to increase the number of residences in the area, which would indicate they would not be in favor of converting a residential structure into a non-residential use. Commissioner Berry questioned Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, regarding the street width in the area. Mr. Turner stated the width was a standard four -lane roadway. Mr. Turner agreed there was a sight distance problem on Chester Street at Roosevelt Road. Mr. Turner also stated it was deemed advisable to use the alleyway to keep traffic off Chester Street. There was a lengthy discussion concerning if the two parties could work through the issues and come to an agreement on how the two could locate together. Ms. Anthony stated her group would be willing to meet with the neighborhood and try to reach a compromise. Ms. Hendrix stated her group would be willing to assist with finding a new location but not for the Center to locate in the area. E November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 Commissioner Downing asked Ms. Raynor the type corporation and funding mechanisms the Center operated under. Ms Raynor stated the Center was a 501 c 3 corporation and the Center operates on donations from individuals. In the future, she stated, the Center will apply for grants to assist in operations. Ms. Raynor stated location was important for staff to get to the victims, but the facility was for an administrative office only. Ms. Raynor stated the Center has been in existence for three years operating from member's homes. She stated the Center was not modeled from any other program she was aware of. Commissioner Nunnley stated a concern of the lack of communication between the neighbors and the applicant and stated he saw preservation of neighborhoods as a key component of the City. Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning Staff, indicated there were four to five structures which were "gone" as a result of the tornado. He stated the map in the package did not indicate this and it appeared there were more structures in the area than are in fact there. In the future, he stated, staff will indicate the structures which are no longer there by "x-ing" through the non- existent structures. Chairman Downing stated two years ago the Commission spoke of mixed-use developments and urban sprawl. He questioned how the neighborhood was being destroyed with the placement of an office in the area. He stated the office would be used for administrative purposes only. He stated not allowing infill development would further urban sprawl. Chairman Downing stated if the sign is the issue, then remove the sign. Mr. Lawson stated the key to smart growth is to revitalize areas in ways that could convert back to single-family. He stated that through the PD -0 the City can support the application and begin to revitalize the area. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Raynor if she could limit the number of employees to three, remove the sign, offer no client group counseling on the premise, only offer client in -take services, end hours at the Center at 5:00 pm and have no one coming into the Center for counseling. Ms. Raynor agreed to these conditions. 10 -November 15, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7107 Commissioner Lowry made the motion to approve the Land Use application as filed, Item #8. The vote failed 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Lowry made the motion to approve Item #8.1 the PD -O request as filed including staff comments and recommendations including limiting the number of employees to three, removing the sign as agreed to by the applicant and that there be no in house group counseling as agreed to by the applicant. The vote passed 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Norm Floyd and Obray Nunnley). 11