Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8132-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-8132 NAME: Cycle Breakers, Inc. Short -form POD LOCATION: Located at 800 Apperson Street DEVELOPER: Kenneth Haskin 401 West Markham Street, Suite 410 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm 201 Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.1 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: PD -O PROPOSED USE: Cycle Breakers VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five (5) year deferral of the required hard surface parking. A. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project is located at 800 Apperson Street bordered by Calhoun and 9th Streets. The site contains 4.0 acres of land and a 37,400 square foot building; formerly Carver Elementary School. Part of the property contains a paved asphalt area that has been, and will continue to be, used for parking. There is a large field containing grass that will also be used for additional parking. The applicant is requesting a five (5) year deferral of the required hard surface parking in light of the acquisitions that the Little Rock Airport Commission is making in the area. The only structural change to the building planned at this time is to enclose a breezeway on the southwest side of the building to FILE NO.: Z -8132-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Area: Request: Purpose: Existing Use: Cycle Breakers, Inc. Karen Alford, Executive Director 800 Apperson Street Approximately 4.55 Acres Rezone from R-3 to 0-2 Office, school (classes and training educational, technical and vocational) School facility SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING A. North — Single family residences and the Nat Hill Community Center (along East 6th Street); zoned R-3 and PR South — Church and single family residences (across East 9th Street); zoned R-3 East — Single family residences (across Apperson Street); zoned R-3 West — Church parking, single family residences and industrial uses; zoned R-3 and 1-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. From initial inspection, the sidewalk on 9"' Street is damaged and should repaired. Additional improvements may be required after additional inspections. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Ramps should be installed at the intersections. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #12 (East 6th Street Route) runs along East 6th Street to the north and East 11 "f Street to the south. FILE NO.: Z -8132-A (Cont. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the East Little Rock and Pettaway Park Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-3 to 0-2 Office and Institutional District. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Apperson Street and East 9th Street are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. Local Streets with non-residential uses along them are constructed with a wider cross section. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Cycle Breakers, Inc., owner of the 4.55 acre property located at 800 Apperson Street, is requesting to rezone the property from "R-3" Single Family District to "0-2" Office and Institutional District. The property is located at the northwest corner of East 9th Street and Apperson Street. The rezoning is proposed in order to utilize the existing school building for Cycle Breakers' facilities, including office and school classes and training - educational, technical and vocational) uses. There is currently a one-story school building within the south half of the property, with parking along the north side of the building. There is an access drive from Apperson Street along the east property line. The north portion of the property is an undeveloped grass -covered field area. E FILE NO.: Z -8132-A (Cont. There is a mixture of uses and zoning in this general area. There are single family residences and the Nat Hill Community Center and Little Rock Parks property to the north along East 6�' Street. There is a church and single family residences to the south. Single family residences are located across Apperson Street. Church parking, single family residences and industrial uses are located to the west. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as "Public Institutional". The requested 0-2 zoning does not require an amendment to the Land Use Plan. Staff is not supportive of the requested zoning. Although the City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as "Public Institutional", given the surrounding zoning pattern and uses, staff believes the requested 0-2 zoning is not appropriate. Single family residences and zoning are located immediately north, south and east of the subject property. Industrial uses and 1-3 zoning use located west of the site. Staff believes it would be appropriate to leave this property's zoning as R-3 to serve as a buffer between the industrial and residential uses. Staff feels that 0-2 zoning at this location could have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 26, 2007) The applicant was present. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Judge Willard Proctor spoke on behalf of the application. He stated the property was occupied by a 37,400 square foot building that was built in 1962 for use as a school and would never be used as single family residential. He described uses in the area surrounding the site as industrial to the west; airport two blocks to the east; vacant lots, City park and a school to the north and a church to the south. Judge Proctor stated the property did not really provide a buffer between the neighborhood and the industrial property since some of the property was an open field. He stated the proposed use was no more impactful on the neighborhood than the existing uses in the area around the site. Judge Proctor described the proposed uses as classes, meetings and job training. He stated the program provided prevention and intervention programs that fit in with the Mayor's stated goal of reducing crime in the City. He stated the proposed use was similar to the alternative school that previously occupied the site, as recently as 2006. Q FILE NO.: Z -8132-A (Cont.) Judge proctor stated the Little Rock National Airport had caused the decline of the neighborhood by buying property and then letting it sit vacant. He stated the building on this site would also sit vacant and be of no benefit to the neighborhood if the application was not approved. Judge Proctor addressed the concerns of the parents of children at Carver Magnet School by stating the school's playground was located behind the building and the children would not be affected by traffic on East 6th Street. He stated Cycle Breakers had four (4) mandatory meetings a year and two (2) of those occurred in June and August when school was not in session. He stated he would continue to work with the neighborhood to address their concerns. Linee Ophof spoke in opposition. She reminded the Commission of its prior denial of Cycle Breakers Planned Development application. She described activities on the Carver School campus and noted there were children and elderly residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Ophof described the neighborhood as fragile and stated she had visited with residents of the neighborhood who thanked her for voicing opposition to Cycle Breakers proposal to locate in the neighborhood. Barbara Cockrell, a parent of two (2) Carver students, spoke in opposition. She stated the proposed use would negatively impact the neighborhood. Ms. Cockrell voiced concerns about parking and traffic and stated the proposed use was not appropriate for location in a neighborhood of residences and schools. Kim Meldrum spoke in opposition. She stated she had obtained crime statistics from the Little Rock Police Department showing an overall reduction of crime in the area while indicating an increase in traffic accidents. She stated the proposed use would add to traffic and congestion problems in the area. LauraBeth VanEvery Hartz, a parent of two (2) children at Carver School, expressed concerns about the nature of activities proposed on the site by Cycle Breakers. She stated, once the site is zoned to 0-2 it can be used for any 0-2 use. She noted several uses in 0-2 that she felt were inappropriate for the site. Cassandra Blue, neighborhood association president, stated the neighborhood opposed the proposed use. She stated the city did not listen to the neighborhood's concerns until the Carver School parents got involved. Commissioner Williams stated he wished the neighborhood and the applicant could work out their differences but he would support the neighborhood. He stated he felt the neighborhood's concerns were more important than those of the school. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Ms. Blue stated she considered the school part of the neighborhood. El FILE NO.: Z -8132-A (Cont. Mark Leveritt, the attorney representing the applicant, asked the Commission not to politicize the issue but to consider whether 0-2 zoning was appropriate for the site. He stated he agreed that the neighborhood was fragile, but he felt Cycle Breakers would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Leveritt stated there was no proof that allowing Cycle Breakers in the neighborhood would result in an increase in crime. He stated there had been no incidents of crime related to a Cycle Breakers meeting. He stated there already was traffic around the site and the previous use which occupied the site generated traffic. Mr. Leveritt stated the site was located next to an industrially zoned area. Commissioner Williams asked if there were any sex offenders in the Cycle Breakers program. Judge Proctor responded that there currently were twenty-eight (28) such offenders in the program who attended the quarterly meetings. Commissioner Hargraves stated the Commission had previously denied an application for Cycle Breakers to use this site. He asked what was different about this application. Mr. Leveritt responded that the current 0-2 zoning application allowed more uses. Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development, stated the issue before the Commission was an 0-2 zoning request and, if approved, would allow any of the uses specifically listed in the 0-2 district. He stated the previous application was for Cycle Breakers only. Mr. Leveritt stated the applicant had agreed to limit the uses to only those listed on the application. In response to questions from the Commission, Judge Proctor described security measures taken by Cycle Breakers. He also said there would be approximately 600 persons attending the quarterly meetings. Commissioner Yates asked staff if the Commission could restrict uses under a rezoning application. Staff responded that the applicant could offer to limit the uses proposed under a rezoning application. In response to a question from the Commission, Tony Bozynski stated the site was shown on the Airport's overall acquisition plan. Commissioner Yates commented that this was a mixed use area and he felt the proposed use was appropriate. A motion was made to approve the application. The motion failed on a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent. 5 April 26, 2007 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -8132-A Owner: Cycle Breakers, Inc. Applicant: Karen Alford, Executive Director Location: 800 Apperson Street Area: Approximately 4.55 Acres Request: Rezone from R-3 to 0-2 Purpose: Office, school (classes and training educational, technical and vocational) Existing Use: School facility SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING 0 North — Single family residences and the Nat Hill Community Center (along East 6th Street); zoned R-3 and PR South — Church and single family residences (across East 9th Street); zoned R-3 East — Single family residences (across Apperson Street); zoned R-3 West — Church parking, single family residences and industrial uses; zoned R-3 and 1-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. From initial inspection, the sidewalk on 9th Street is damaged and should repaired. Additional improvements may be required after additional inspections. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Ramps should be installed at the intersections. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #12 {East 6th Street Route) runs along East 6th Street to the north and East 111 Street to the south. April 26, 2007 ITEM NO: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -8132-A C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the East Little Rock and Pettaway Park Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-3 to 0-2 Office and Institutional District. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Apperson Street and East 9th Street are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. Local Streets with non-residential uses along them are constructed with a wider cross section. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Cycle Breakers, Inc., owner of the 4.55 acre property located at 800 Apperson Street, is requesting to rezone the property from "R-3" Single Family District to "0-2" Office and institutional District. The property is located at the northwest corner of East 9th Street and Apperson Street. The rezoning is proposed in order to utilize the existing school building for Cycle Breakers' facilities, including office and school classes and training - educational, technical and vocational) uses. FA April 26, 2007 ITEM NO: 7 (Cont.) FILE_ NO.: Z -8132-A There is currently a one-story school building within the south half of the property, with parking along the north side of the building. There is an access drive from Apperson Street along the east property line. The north portion of the property is an undeveloped grass -covered field area. There is a mixture of uses and zoning in this general area. There are single family residences and the Nat Hill Community Center and Little Rock Parks property to the north along East 6th Street. There is a church and single family residences to the south. Single family residences are located across Apperson Street. Church parking, single family residences and industrial uses are located to the west. The City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as "Public Institutional". The requested 0-2 zoning does not require an amendment to the Land Use Plan. Staff is not supportive of the requested zoning. Although the City's Future Land Use Plan designates this property as "Public Institutional", given the surrounding zoning pattern and uses, staff believes the requested 0-2 zoning is not appropriate. Single family residences and zoning are located immediately north, south and east of the subject property. Industrial uses and 1-3 zoning use located west of the site. Staff believes it would be appropriate to leave this property's zoning as R-3 to serve as a buffer between the industrial and residential uses. Staff feels that 0-2 zoning at this location could have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 26, 2007) The applicant was present. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Judge Willard Proctor spoke on behalf of the application. He stated the property was occupied by a 37,400 square foot building that was built in 1962 for use as a school and would never be used as single family residential. He described uses in the area surrounding the site as industrial to the west; airport two blocks to the east; vacant lots, City park and a school to the north and a church to the south. Judge Proctor stated the property did not really provide a buffer between the neighborhood and the industrial property since some of the property was an open field. He stated the proposed use was no more impactful on the neighborhood than the existing uses in the area around the site. 3 April 26, 2007 ITEM NO: 7 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -8132-A Judge Proctor described the proposed uses as classes, meetings and job training. He stated the program provided prevention and intervention programs that fit in with the Mayor's stated goal of reducing crime in the City. He stated the proposed use was similar to the alternative school that previously occupied the site, as recently as 2006. Judge proctor stated the Little Rock National Airport had caused the decline of the neighborhood by buying property and then letting it sit vacant. He stated the building on this site would also sit vacant and be of no benefit to the neighborhood if the application was not approved. Judge Proctor addressed the concerns of the parents of children at Carver Magnet School by stating the school's playground was located behind the building and the children would not be affected by traffic on East 6t" Street. He stated Cycle Breakers had four (4) mandatory meetings a year and two (2) of those occurred in June and August when school was not in session. He stated he would continue to work with the neighborhood to address their concerns. Linee Ophof spoke in opposition. She reminded the Commission of its prior denial of Cycle Breakers Planned Development application. She described activities on the Carver School campus and noted there were children and elderly residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Ophof described the neighborhood as fragile and stated she had visited with residents of the neighborhood who thanked her for voicing opposition to Cycle Breakers proposal to locate in the neighborhood. Barbara Cockrell, a parent of two (2) Carver students, spoke in opposition. She stated the proposed use would negatively impact the neighborhood. Ms. Cockrell voiced concerns about parking and traffic and stated the proposed use was not appropriate for location in a neighborhood of residences and schools. Kim Meldrum spoke in opposition. She stated she had obtained crime statistics from the Little Rock Police Department showing an overall reduction of crime in the area while indicating an increase in traffic accidents. She stated the proposed use would add to traffic and congestion problems in the area. LauraBeth VanEvery Hartz, a parent of two (2) children at Carver School, expressed concerns about the nature of activities proposed on the site by Cycle Breakers. She stated, once the site is zoned to 0-2 it can be used for any 0-2 use. She noted several uses in 0-2 that she felt were inappropriate for the site. Cassandra Blue, neighborhood association president, stated the neighborhood opposed the proposed use. She stated the city did not listen to the neighborhood's concerns until the Carver School parents got involved. 4 April 26, 2007 ITEM NO: 7 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -8132-A Commissioner Williams stated he wished the neighborhood and the applicant could work out their differences but he would support the neighborhood. He stated he felt the neighborhood's concerns were more important than those of the school. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Ms. Blue stated she considered the school part of the neighborhood. Mark Leveritt, the attorney representing the applicant, asked the Commission not to politicize the issue but to consider whether 0-2 zoning was appropriate for the site. He stated he agreed that the neighborhood was fragile, but he felt Cycle Breakers would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Leveritt stated there was no proof that allowing Cycle Breakers in the neighborhood would result in an increase in crime. He stated there had been no incidents of crime related to a Cycle Breakers meeting. He stated there already was traffic around the site and the previous use which occupied the site generated traffic. Mr. Leveritt stated the site was located next to an industrially zoned area. Commissioner Williams asked if there were any sex offenders in the Cycle Breakers program. Judge Proctor responded that there currently were twenty-eight (28) such offenders in the program who attended the quarterly meetings. Commissioner Hargraves stated the Commission had previously denied an application for Cycle Breakers to use this site. He asked what was different about this application. Mr. Leveritt responded that the current 0-2 zoning application allowed more uses. Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning and Development, stated the issue before the Commission was an 0-2 zoning request and, if approved, would allow any of the uses specifically listed in the 0-2 district. He stated the previous application was for Cycle Breakers only. Mr. Leveritt stated the applicant had agreed to limit the uses to only those listed on the application. In response to questions from the Commission, Judge Proctor described security measures taken by Cycle Breakers. He also said there would be approximately 600 persons attending the quarterly meetings. Commissioner Yates asked staff if the Commission could restrict uses under a rezoning application. Staff responded that the applicant could offer to limit the uses proposed under a rezoning application. In response to a question from the Commission, Tony Bozynski stated the site was shown on the Airport's overall acquisition plan. 5 April 26, 2007 ITEM NO: 7 (Cont. FIi>A=11110161O 43WOZ-1l Commissioner Yates commented that this was a mixed use area and he felt the proposed use was appropriate. A motion was made to approve the application. The motion failed on a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent. A FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont.) accommodate a residential living area. There is presently a fence along the perimeter of the property that will be repaired where broken and extended to enclose other areas that are presently open. Development Rationale of the Protect General Information — Cycle Breakers, Inc. is a non-profit organization that started in 2001 and began operating under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code in 2003. The "CYCLE" in "Cycle Breakers" stands for Changing Your Circumstances by Life Emending. The Mission of the Cycle Breakers Program is to aggressively intervene in the lives of individuals in the time to stop the cycle of crime. The program is designed to fully utilize the period while an individual is under the Court's jurisdiction and supervision to effect a lasting and permanent change in the lifestyles, behaviors and decision-making abilities of program participants. Cycle Breakers, Inc. grew out of the Cycle Breakers program that was originally funded by the Pulaski County Quorum Court in 2001; and therefore, it works closely with the Fifth Division Circuit Court of Pulaski County. The Cycle Breakers Program seeks to carry out this mission by recruiting Community Mentors and cultivating Mentors from within the program who will have a positive influence upon the program participants. The program will sponsor daily meetings that focus on addictions. The primarily focus is upon drug and alcohol addictions; however, others struggling with addictive behaviors also benefit from the program. The program offers a holistic approach to addiction that relies heavily upon the 12 -step Program but is based on teachings that change the behavior of the inner, spiritual man. Counseling sessions are also offered for probationers with anger management and domestic abuse issues on a daily basis as needed. Once a month approximately 80 probationers attend informational and educational sessions that are designed to provide them with the tools to change. Cycle Breakers partners with the community and governmental organizations to provide sessions that deal with education, finance, job skills, family issues, mental and physical health. Probationers are connected with resources to help them. This program was so successful that it was extended to every probationer. As a result, every quarter a meeting is held where all of the probationers have access to these sessions. Presently, these quarterly meetings are held at the Barton Coliseum. These meetings focus on four broad areas: 1. Finance and Jobs; 2. Education; 3. Abuse and Additions; and 4. Mental and Physical Health. During 2006, the focus has been on metal and physical height. The organization partnered with UAMS, the Health Department, Stamp out Smoking, the Witness Project, the Arkansas Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Pulaski County Extension Service, and many other organizations and provided screening for Brest Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Diabetes, Cholesterol, Vision, Stroke, Body Mass Index, Blood Pressure, AIDS/STD, and dental care. Lives were saved. Cancers were detected early FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont. and treatment is being given. Persons at risk for diabetes, strokes, and hypertension were identified and referred to treatment. Free vision screenings were offered to persons who could not afford care. The savings to County and the State in terms of health care costs and quality of life are immeasurable. The building will house prevention and intervention programs that are offered to the approximately 1,000 probationers that are assigned to the Court. Proiect Components Hours of Operation — Daily Operations — The day to day operations of the building will be from Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 8:30 pm. During these times, Group Sessions and Individual sessions will be offered to probationers. These sessions will deal with: 1. Finance and Jobs; 2. Education; 3. Abuse and Addictions; and 4. Mental and Physical Health. There will also be classes offered. The planned classes include GED classes, automotive trades, computer classes, and other trades. The office will be staffed by a full time office manager, a full time security officer part-time teachers, and counselors. The applicant will serve as the facility manager and will be ultimately responsible for all activities that take place on the premises of the facility. There is a staff of five other deputy probation officers that will assist the applicant in managing the facility. Monthly Operations — Once a month during eight of the months of the year, there will be a meeting with approximately 100 probationers. These probationers are mostly non-violent first offenders. Four times during the year, these meetings are held on Saturday from 8:00 am to 2:30 pm. Four times during the year, meetings area held on a weeknight from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. These are the informational and educational sessions that are designed to provide probationers with the tools to change the items discussed previously. Quarterly Operations — On one Saturday during each quarter of the year, a meeting will be held where 600 probationers will attend the meeting. The quarterly meetings are operated from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. This year, the meetings were held during March, June, August and November. Because of the size of the meeting and the parking space that is available, the meetings will be divided into two smaller groups. The first meeting will be held from 7:00 am to 11:00 am and the second meeting from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. This will assist with traffic flow in the area. The applicant anticipates that each session will have approximately 250 to 300 participants. Chemical Free Living Facility — The Chemical Free Living Facility will be open to probationers that have a drug or alcohol problem. Residents will be strictly supervised and monitored directly by members of the Fifth Division staff. The facility will be staffed by a resident manager who will be on the premises from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. The facility will be limited to ten (10) probationers that will live on the premises. The premises will be secured. Residents will be required to work during the day or be involved in the sessions or classes that are offered 3 FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont. during the day. Residents will have a 10:00 pm curfew from Sunday to Thursday and 12:00 am curfew on Friday and Saturday. Parking — Deferral Request — The property is located one block from the property the Little Rock Airport Commission has recently condemned. Contacts with the Little Rock Airport Commission have indicated future plans include the acquisition of this property. The plan, however, is to not take the property for approximately ten (10) years. An estimate for surfacing the grass parking area was secured. The estimated cost is $175,000.00 to install the asphalt parking lot which would accommodate approximately 400 cars. The applicant has indicated this would not be prudent at this time. First, the property will be condemned and it is unlikely the applicant's would be able to recoup the investment. Secondly, a paved parking lot would be unattractive and would not conducive to the neighborhood. The request includes a 5 year deferral for the required parking. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the former Carver Elementary School most recently used as an Alternative School by the Little Rock School District. The site is located within an area the Little Rock Airport Commission has shown on the Master Plan for acquisition. There are a number of uses in the area including the Little Rock Airport, residential structures, industrial and churches. Along East 6th Street there are a number of commercial businesses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site and the East Little Rock Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: UBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. From initial inspection, the sidewalk on 9th Street is damaged and should repaired. Additional improvements may be required after additional inspections. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Ramps should be installed at the intersections. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. 4 FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont.) Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. LATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Office Development to allow the site to be used for meeting space, classroom space, office space and residential living to accommodate probationers. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Apperson Street and East 9th Street are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. Local Streets with non-residential uses along them are constructed with a wider cross section. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. Landscaping may be required with any on site parking. 3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 5 FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were a few outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned the proposed surface material of the grass parking lot. Staff also questioned the total number of parking spaces that could be provided within the grass field area. Staff questioned ownership of the property. The applicant stated Cycle Breakers Inc. would purchase the land and then dedicate the building and land to Pulaski County. Staff questioned the total number of probationers accessing the site on any given day. The applicant stated the desire was to expand the available educational services. He stated if this was successful there would be approximately 70 to 80 persons daily accessing the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated sidewalks would be required per the Master Street Plan along abutting roadways. Staff also stated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk would require repair prior to occupancy. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated landscaping may be required with any additional on-site paving. Staff also stated the City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many on-site trees as feasible. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information and 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 cover letter to staff addressing most of the concerns raised at the November 16, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated approximately 311 cars can be parked in the open field area. A total of eight rows of parking are available with an estimated area of eight feet in width and eighteen feet in length. The row adjacent to the northern most end of the property will park approximately 32 cars, a second row will park approximately 31 cars and six rows will park approximately 62 cars. Twenty-four feet will be placed between each row of parking for drives. A smaller area of land located nearer the building will provide two additional rows of parking and will park approximately 44 cars. The applicant has retained Ronnie Geddings, a former Deputy Probation Officer to coordinate the parking. He presently coordinates parking at the Arkansas State Fairgrounds and parking on the golf course at Razorback football games. The request includes a five year deferral of the required hard surface material. According to the applicant in addition to the cost of construction, the neighborhood does not desire the area to paved. The site is used by area residents for pee wee football games. The paving of the grass field will take away a valuable amenity the neighborhood currently utilizes for open space and outdoor recreation. On the site there are 21 marked parking spaces and one handicap space. There is additional space on the basketball court which is paved and can be used as C.1 FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont. parking for an additional 15 parking spaces. The site contains a total of 36 hard surface parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the building for the applicant's intended use but staff has concerns with the parking as proposed. On any given day the provided parking does not appear to be adequate to meet the parking demands of the patrons accessing the site. In addition on the day of the quarterly meetings there will be a great deal of traffic accessing the site which staff feels will spill into the neighborhood creating a hardship on the residents of the area. The site is located within the only pocket of residential homes left in the area. Although the area has been identified on the Airport's Master Plan for future acquisition staff feels the neighborhood should be protected in the interim. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Kenneth Haskin addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated Cycle Breakers had been looking for a location for a couple of years and when the school became available they felt this was a perfect location for their use. He stated the group would protect the neighborhood. He stated the project was established to aid the needs of the probationers served. He stated he felt this was an opportunity to serve the community. Mr. Mark Leverett addressed the Commission to discuss the parking concerns. He stated he was not a parking expert but felt the plan Cycle Breakers had in place would allow sufficient parking and would protect the neighborhood. He stated there were two areas designated as parking. He stated a total of 300 cars could park on the open field and another 30 to 40 cars on the parking lot and on the basketball court. He stated the meetings would be broken into two sessions to not flood the neighborhood with cars and people. He stated a specific route would be designated minimize the impact on the neighborhood. He stated Cycle Breakers would hire a parking expert to coordinate traffic to and from the site to also minimize the impact on the neighborhood. He stated the safety of the residents was Cycle Breakers first concern. Mr. Ronnie Jackson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home and church were located in the neighborhood. He stated there were a number of youth and elderly in the neighborhood. He stated during the summer he would take the youth of his bible class to the basketball courts to play ball. He stated he agreed the programs was a good program. He stated he did not feel the program should be located in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Margie Goodman addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her mother lived across from the site and she was very concerned for her safety 7 FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont.) if the use was approved. She stated there were a number of children in the neighborhood and she was also concerned for their safety. She stated she agreed with the program, just not the location of the program. Mr. Elijah Shepard, Sr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located across from the field the applicant's were proposing for parking. He stated he was not in favor of allowing the field to become fenced and a parking lot. He stated he was also concerned with the allowance of residents on the site. He stated he was concerned the residents would spill into the neighborhood and create an unsafe environment. Ms. Kay Davis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her mother was 76 and had lived in the neighborhood a number of years. She stated her home was located directly across the street from the site and her mother had stated if the use was approved she would not be able to sleep at night. She stated the site was two blocks for an elementary school and a few blocks from the community center. She stated with the airports current acquisition the neighborhood had suffered enough. She stated her primary concern was the safety of the neighborhood and protection of the neighborhood. Mr. Onzell Wright addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his mother lived in the area and his church was located in the area. He stated his concern was for his mother and for the church. He stated he felt the residents should have the opportunity to enjoy their homes and sit on their front porches without fear. She stated he felt Cycle Breakers was a good program but he did not feel the location was appropriate for their use. He stated the fabric of the neighborhood has declined based on the acquisitions of the airport. He stated he felt this use would cause additional decline in the area. Mr. Haskins stated the site would house a chemical free living environment with a maximum of ten residents. He stated the residents did not just roam the neighborhood they work or are involved in programs offered through Cycle Breakers. He stated crime exist in all neighborhoods. He stated the persons in the program were first time offenders and had an incentive to completing the program and many could have their record expunged if they were successful in the program. He stated he did not see any link to the use and the decline in property values. He stated presently the chemical free living facility was located on Wolfe Street and the area had not seen a decline in property values as a result of the facility. He stated presently there were two residents but as many as eight person had lived in the facility. The Commission questioned the number of probationers accessing the site. Mr. Haskins stated in the beginning 20 to 30 per week. He stated as the center grew as many as 70 to 80 per day. He stated the center would offer counseling, anger management, financial management and educational opportunities to complete their GED. He stated there was a critical need for the service. He stated education was the key to breaking the patterns of the offenders. PP FILE NO.: Z-8132 (Cont. The Commission questioned the funding. Mr. Haskins stated funding was provided by the probationers through court fees. The Commission questioned if the County would be involved in the operation of the facility. Mr. Haskin stated the probation officers were members of the 5th Circuit Court. The Commission questioned if the person staying overnight with the residents would be a probation officer. Mr. Haskins stated he was not sure since they had not hired anyone. He stated the person would be specially trained for this type situation. Commissioner Yates questioned the difference in a parolee and probationer. Mr. Haskins stated a probationer had not been to prison was the primary difference. Commissioner Yates questioned the number of probation officers who would be at the site daily. Mr. Haskins stated three to five at any given time. Commissioner Yates questioned the number of probationers per instructor. He stated fifteen to twenty probationers per instructor. The Commission discussed their concerns of placing the proposed use in the fragile neighborhood. The Commissioners stated they felt the service was a good service but questioned placing the use within the heart of a single-family neighborhood. Commissioner Williams stated he felt the program was an outstanding program. Commissioner Meyer questioned the balance of an empty building verses an occupied building. Commissioner Rahman stated he questioned placing the use in a fragile neighborhood without knowing what the traffic and parking would do to the area. He stated he felt the use would continue to erode the neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 absent. 9 September 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 Name: Heights Neighborhood Action Plan STAFF REPORT: In the fall of 2002, the Planning and Development Department contacted the representatives of the Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Association, Heights Neighborhood Association, and the Forest Park neighborhood Association about developing a neighborhood action plan. The Planning and Development Department surveyed other departments and conducted field studies to gather information to present to the review committee. Staff also reviewed history of the area, existing land use, zoning, future land use, infrastructure, circulation, parks, census information (demographics) and crime. A survey was conducted as part of the kick-off for this plan. The survey forms used by the City of Little Rock were a refinement of previous neighborhood surveys and were given to the three neighborhood associations to edit prior to mailing. A saturation mailing was performed with addresses obtained from the GIS. Surveys were sent to all addresses, business owners, single family residences and multi -family addresses. Surveys were mailed along with a letter explaining the planning process, a card to return to state that a person wanted to be on the committee and a postage paid return envelope. Of the 2500 surveys mailed, 655 were returned to the city by September 1, 2002. The 26.2% percent return rate provides a very good response for a mail survey and should provide a good representation of the study area. The first meeting was held in late September 2002 and followed by bi-weekly meeting until May 2003. A series of informational meetings focusing on providing the committee members with an over -view of city activities was attended by various city staff members from various departments: Planning, Public Works, and Parks. The draft of the plan was sent to the neighborhood associations for their approval after the draft was complete. The Heights and Forest Park Neighborhood Associations were very involved in the formulation of the goals and objectives and did not wish to edit any of the content. Prospect Terrace responded on June 25th with some changes. The changes were sent to nineteen of the steering committee that participated the most often. Of those receiving ballots, 12 of the top 14 participants voted overwhelmingly to add two of the three additions proposed by Prospect Terrace. (The third addition was felt to restate an objective already in place.) The three suggested deletions to the plan were similarly defeated by the committee. In summary, there are two additions to the plan text in the infrastructure section. from the last draft. At this time, the steering committee requests the city via the Little Rock Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to accept the action plan as a resolution and help the neighborhood work toward the goals presented in the plan. September 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2003) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Matt Largen, President of Forest Park Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the Heights Neighborhood Action Plan, provided a brief introduction of the plan. Tricia Finch discussed the Housing Goal and described the need to maintain the integrity of the single-family neighborhood and to regulate accessory dwellings. Judy Belford discussed the need for residents of the neighborhood to report code violations to the city. Norman Hodges discussed the goal of maintaining existing zoning except in instances where such zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. Gene Levy discussed the Parks and Recreation Goal mentioning the need for a park and gave a description of a linear park along Kavanaugh Boulevard that residents of the area would like to see developed. Kathy Johnson discussed the Infrastructure Goals and gave a presentation on the deteriorating infrastructure in the neighborhood and described the need for repairs. Matt Largen concluded the presentation in support of the plan and described the efforts of neighborhood associations in the area to organize an umbrella organization to work with the city in order the implement the plan. Commissioner Bill Rector made a statement about the city's inability to pay for infrastructures improvements and discussed the city's need to raise funds for Public Works projects. Commissioner Bob Lowry made a statement that an undeveloped park is located north of Hawthorne Road. Commissioner Lowry also stated that city staff needs to remind steering committees that the city cannot guarantee that changes will not take place that are contrary to neighborhood action plan goals. Commissioner Judith Faust made a statement praising the efforts of the Steering Committee but cautioned that the city cannot guarantee the implementation of the Planned Zoning Development process for zoning changes. Dana Carney, City Staff, stated that some Future Land Use categories do not require the use of PZDs. Commissioner Rohn Muse made a statement praising the efforts of the Steering Committee. A motion was made to adopt the resolution as presented. The resolution was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. K