HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6096-C-1 Staff AnalysisFebruary 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO,: Z-7295
NAME: Chenal Valley Montessori SchooF— Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION: 16,600 Block of Forest Lane, south side
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Paper Company/Dorothy Moffett
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
development of a Montessori School campus on this
undeveloped, R-2 zoned 5 acre tract.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
2
SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Forest Lane, midway between
Taylor Loop Road and Katillus Road.
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is quickly developing with new
single family homes. The large tract across Forest Lane to the north was
recenti-y approved for redevelopment as a single family subdivision.
Older, single family homes are directly adjacent to the west. Valley Falls
Estates, a large, new single family subdivision is being developed further
to the west and south. A church occupies the large, R-2 zoned tract
adjacent to the east. With proper attention to issues such as landscaping
and screening, this relatively small school should be compatible with
surrounding uses. The primary issue of concern appears.to be access to
the site.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Johnson Ranch and
Westchester Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The applicant proposes to access the site via a single driveway off of
Forest Lane. A total of 31 on -site parking spaces are proposed. The
school is proposed to have 16 employees; 6 full-time and 10 part-time.
Sixteen parking spaces are required for the employees. The enrollment of
the school is 110 students divided as follows; 66 preschool (ages 3-6), 22
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.;_ E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
lower elementary (ages 6-9) and 22.upper elementary (ages (9-14). The
15 remaining parking spaces exceed the number required by the code for
a school with the student population proposed.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Portions of the proposed land use buffer along the eastern perimeter drop
below the nine (9) foot minimum width allowed at any given point. The
average land use buffer width required along the eastern perimeter is
twenty (20) feet.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings is required to help
screen this property from the residential properties to the east, south, and
west.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered
Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Forest Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial
street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. 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.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
7. Show estimated storm flows (Q) and direction of flow for water courses
entering and leaving the property.
8. The existing minimum pavement width of Forest Lane is 13' which
does not meet standards for the two way traffic that will be generated
by the proposed school. Provide a solution to access problems.
0
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
6. UTILITY. FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy: No Comments received.
Reliant: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: A Capital Investment Charge base on the size of the meter
applies in this area in addition to normal connection fees. The Little
Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether
additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If
additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will. be installed at the
Developer's expense.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code.
County Planning: No Comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 12, 2002)
Dorothy Moffett was present representing the application. Staff presented the
item and noted that additional information was needed regarding: signage,
number of employees, number.of students by pre-school and elementary age,
days and hours of operation, site lighting (especially the soccer field), fencing
and phasing of construction. Staff no that the buildings along the east
perimeter needed to be moved farther from the property line to provide the
required setback and buffer. In response to a question from staff, Ms. Moffett
stated the soccer field would be solely for use by the school. She stated it was
her hope to have interschool competition on the site and the soccer field would
be lighted. Ms. Moffett stated the first phase of construction would involve the
southernmost building and one of the two northern buildings. Staff noted that
there appeared to be a power line along the east perimeter of the site and no
easement was shown on her survey. She was advised to have her surveyor
double-check that issue.
Landscape comments were presented and discussed. Ms. Moffett stated she
would prefer to use a wrought -iron fence with landscaping to provide screening
3
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
rather than a solid wood fence. The Committee felt that would provide a more
aesthetic appearance.
Public Works Comments were presented. The focus of the discussion- center_ ed:
on access to the site since Forest Lane is such a substandard street. It was
noted that Ms. Moffett is obligated only to widen the street directly in front of her
site. Staff informed the Commission that the north half of Forest Lane, from in
front of this site west to Katillus Road, would be widened in conjunction with
Phase IV of the residential plat proposed for the property north of Forest Lane.
Several options were discussed including converting Forest Lane to one-way,
requiring persons going to the Montessori School to utilize a one-way pattern
while leaving the street itself open to two-way traffic and allowing Ms. Moffett to
do some degree of widening of Forest Lane to Katillus Road in lieu of doing full
street improvements in front of her site. She was advised to meet with staff.
Ms. Moffett was advised to submit 4 copies of a revised site plan and responses
to staff issues no later than noon, Wednesday September 18, 2002. The
Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Chenal Valley Montessori School proposes to develop the wooded, R-2 zoned
tract located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane as its new
campus. The school will relocate from its current location on Taylor Loop Road.
The applicant proposes to build three, one-story buildings on the site. Two
buildings will be built in Phase I; the rear building and one of the front buildings.
The third building will be built in Phase Il. Parking, consisting of a single
driveway and 31 parking spaces, will be built in Phase I. The school will employ
6 full-time teachers and 10 part-time employees. Maximum enrollment will be
110 students, divided as follows; 66 preschool children (ages 3-6), 22 lower
elementary children (ages 6-9) and 22 upper elementary children (ages 9-.14).
Regular school hours are 8:30 a.m. — 3:15 p.m.., Monday through Friday. There
is also a before and after school program. Parents can bring their children as
early as 7:30 a.m. and pick them up as late as 6:00 p.m. The preschool program
is divided into two, half -day programs; either 8:30 a.m. — 11:15 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.
—12:00 p.m.
A soccer, playfield will be located west and north of the school buildings. The
rear building will contain a small gymnasium. The soccer and basketball
programs are a part of the school's physical education program. The gym and
soccer field will be used by the students.during the school day. There are no
plans for evening use. The soccer field will not be lighted. Low-level lighting is
proposed at the entrance drive and along the parking areas.
0
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-7295
The applicant proposes to use the Cathedral School on Cantrell Road as a
model for the Montessori School's front entrance. A brick and wrought iron
fence will extend along the front property line. An arched, gated entrance with
the school's name across the top will be located over the driveway.
Playgrounds will be located south of the buildings. The sides and rear of the site
will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall, chain link fence. Screening along the perimeters
of the site will consist of natural vegetation, both existing and new.
Staff believes this is an appropriate location for this small school. A multiple
building church campus is located adjacent to the east. Undeveloped property is
adjacent to the south and a large, horse farm is located across Forest Lane to
the north. A new, multi -lot subdivision has recently been approved for the
property north of Forest Lane. That new subdivision "backs -up" to Forest Lane
and has no access to Forest Lane. One single family home is directly adjacent
to the west. Other single family properties have a rear yard relationship. to the
west side of the proposed campus. The homes on these deep lots are located
nearer Katillus Road.
On September 18, 2002, the applicant submitted an addendum to her cover
letter and 4 copies of a revised site plan which addressed the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee and noted in the analysis above. The buildings have
been moved to provide a 9 foot buffer on the east side where the site is adjacent
to the R-2 zoned church campus. A 7.5-foot utility easement has been shown on
that perimeter. The easement does infringe on the buffer between the school
buildings and the church site. Since the adjacent property is developed as a
multiple building church site, allowing the reduced buffer at that point should
have no effect on the adjacent property. Signage will conform to office
standards with the exception of the sign over the entry arch.
The applicant has worked with the Public Works staff to address the issue of
access to the site, since Forest Lane is a substandard street. In lieu of doing full,
half -street improvements only in front of the school site, the applicant has. offered
to widen the entire half -street west to Katillus Road. The street widening will be
to rural residential standard; open ditch. This is acceptable to Public Works
since the terrain is fairly flat and at the crest of a small hill. The north side of
Forest Lane will be widened with Phase IV of the previously mentioned
preliminary plat.
To staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
5
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
1. Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined Sections 4, 5
and 6 of this report.
2. Compliance with the development plan outlined by the applicant in her cover
letter and addendum.
Staff recommends approval of the 9-foot land use buffer on the east perimeter
with the 7.5 foot utility easement. Staff also recommends approval of a variance
to allow the signage over the gated archway entrance. Staff recommends
approval of the street widening plan to allow a reduced, half -street section to be
constructed in front of this site and west to Katillus Road, as proposed by the
applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 3, 2002)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors present. Staff had
received several telephone calls in opposition to the item. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff noted that the
applicant had agreed to construct a cul-de-sac or turn -around at the end of the
driveway to create a better traffic flow on -site for drop-off/pick-up of children.
Mike Hood, of Public Works, described the current condition of Forest Lane and
explained the applicant's proposal to widen Forest Lane West to Katillus Road.
Mr. Hood explained that there was 50 feet of right-of-way already in place, west
to Katillus Road and there was likely no right-of-way in place, east to Taylor Loop
Road.
Chris Barrier, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated
the school would comply with all staff comments and conditions. Mr. Barrier
stated the school was "absolutely committed" to widen Forest Lane to 26 feet in
front of the school and west to Katillus. He stated the school would work with the
church adjacent to the east to explore the possibility of doing street widening
east to Taylor Loop Road. Mr. Barrier stated the church had agreed to dedicate
right-of-way. He described the drop-off/pick-up of children at the school as
occurring at staggered times during the day, thus reducing peak hour traffic
conflicts. Mr. Barrier stated there was no traffic problem at the school's current
location which has less stacking and drop-off/pick-up space. Mr. Barrier
surmised that the proposed school would produce less traffic than if the site were
developed as single family homes.
Torn Holmes, of 12 Pine Manor Drive, stated he was a home builder in a nearby
subdivision and he was concerned about increased traffic in the area, particularly
on Forest Lane.
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E {Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
Hal Kemp, representing Rick Ferguson developer of Valley Falls Estates, stated
he did not feel the applicant had adequately addressed traffic issues. He voiced
his client's concerns about traffic. Mr. Kemp stated the City's own ordinances
required that schools be located on a collector street or higher classification
street (Section 31-201(c)). He stated his client would not object to the school', if
access was from Taylor Loop Road, not Katillus Road.
Jim Swink, of 5011 S. Katillus, spoke of his proposed new residential
development planned for the property north of Forest Lane. Mr. Swink voiced
concerns about traffic and the compatibility of the school with this proposed
development.
Ricky Hunter, of 4611 S. Katillus Road, voiced concerns about noise, school
activities, traffic and the proposed soccer field.
James Matthews, of #7 Waterview Court, stated he was building a home in
Valley Falls Estates and he was opposed to any use of the land for a school. He
presented a letter in which he outlined his specific concerns.
Doug Sherman, of #4 Waterview Court, also spoke of his concerns about traffic.
Chairman Lowry asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles to comment on
Mr. Kemp's interpretation of Section 31-201(c). Mr. Giles responded that the
Commission must determine if the proposed use was a "major traffic generator."
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the proposed school
was not a major traffic problem either in number of vehicles or peak hour
volume. He stated the City would be "hard-pressed" to require the widening of
Forest Lane both to the west and the east.
In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, Mr. Giles stated
conditional uses go with the land. Mr. Lawson commented that the conditional
use could be limited to a Montessori School, exactly as described by the
applicant and with whatever conditions imposed on the site deemed appropriate
by the Commission.
In response to questions raised by Commissioners Berry and Rahman, Mike
Hood stated Katillus Road's traffic carrying capacity was 2,500 vehicles per day;
there are no capital improvement plans to widen the road; it will be widened as
adjacent properties are developed; that single family residences generate 10
trips per day and most traffic on Forest Lane travels west -to -east.
Further comments were made regarding the appropriateness of widening Forest
Lane, either to the east or to the west.
7
February 20, 2003
ITEM! NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
Chris Barrier responded that Section 31-201(c) gives "examples" of traffic
generators and is not a specific list. He stated the Commission must take each
application one at a time. Mr. Barrier stated that requiring the widening of Forest
Lane to the east would negatively impact the church. He reiterated the school's
commitment to wide Forest Lane to two lanes to the west and to continue
discussions with the church about possible widening to the east. Mr. Barrier
stated he did not feel it was appropriate to hold the school hostage when it is a
low traffic generating use. He stated the conditional use was specifically for a
Montessori School, with specific conditions and limits.
Jim Dill, of 37 Durance Drive, voiced concern about the appearance of the
proposed buildings. He expressed concerns about traffic and also presented a
petition signed by many persons in opposition to the school.
Doug Sherman reiterated his traffic concerns and stated he would not be
opposed to the site developing as single family homes.
There was a brief discussion of the level of improvements that would be made to
Forest Lane if the subject property were developed as single family homes as
opposed to the level of improvements to the street proposed by the applicant.
A discussion ensued between Commissioner Berry, Hal Kemp and Doug
Sherman regarding the widening of Forest Lane and the appropriateness of
schools in residential neighborhoods.
City Attorney Steve Giles addressed the issue of off -site street improvements.
He stated the Commission has to look at issues including access to determine if
a proposed conditional use is appropriate. He stated the Commission could
determine that a site has such inadequate access that the proposed use should
be denied. Mr. Giles stated that was a "back -door" approach to telling the
applicant that access must be improved." Mr. Giles stated the Commission could
not force the applicant to widen Forest Lane to the east because there was no
right-of-way to the east (apparently) and other property owners would be
involved.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the Commission could vote on the issue, having
not seen a site plan with the. proposed turn -around. Mr. Lawson responded that
the Commission often approved applications with conditions that resulted in a
minor change to the site plan after the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Rector commented that he had previously lived near a Montessori
School, and he did not find it to be a problem.
Commissioner Muse stated he could not vote on the issue without knowing how
access to the site would be provided. Commissioner Faust commented that the
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7295
Commission did know; that the road would be widened to 26 feet in width, west
to Katillus.
In response to a comment by Commissioner Rahman, Mr. Barrier showed
photographs of the proposed buildings.
A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff comments and
conditions; including construction of a turn -around and widening Forest Lane to
26 feet in width, west to Katillus Road. The vote was 5 ayes, 5 noes and
1 absent. The motion failed.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors. Prior to the Board
meeting, the application was amended. The amendment included two
substantial changes from the plan acted on by the Commission. The plan has
been "flipped"; placing the soccer field on the east side of the property, adjacent
to the church property and away from the residential property to the west. The
second major change is the applicant's proposal to widen Forest Lane eastward
to Taylor Loop Road rather than west to Katillus Road. Other changes include
the addition of a cul-de-sac incorporated into the driveway to provide better
circulation on the site and an increase in enrollment from 110 students to 115.
The applicant has offered the following conditions to be made part of the
application:
1. Improve Forest Lane to Taylor Loop to City residential standards with 22
feet of pavement, and two foot shoulders on each side and curb, sidewalk
and gutter along the perimeter of the applicant's property.
2. Internal circulation subject to City approval with regard to access for
emergency vehicles.
3. Soccer field and playgrounds not to be lighted.
4. Student enrollment to be limited to 115 students aged 3 to 14, pre-school,
primary and elementary grades, in -a Montessori program.
5. Construction to exclude manufactured buildings with external metal,
conventional stucco, or conventional cinder block; external surfaces to be
brick, lap siding and/or decorative pre -cast concrete or similar material,
with membrane, metal standing seam, shingle; or similar roofs.
(Illustrative elevation attached.) Also, no chain -link fencing within fifteen
feet (15') of right-of-way.
9
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7295
6. Buildings sited in substantial conformity with attached illustrative site plan.
7. Landscaping buffer plan subject to staff approval, including credit for
preserved trees.
8. Improved site irrigation and storm water detention plans subject to staff
approval.
At is January 21, 2003 meeting, the Board of Directors determined that the
current application varied from that reviewed by the Planning Commission and,
consequently, remanded the issue to the Commission for a public hearing and
further review. All persons who filled out cards at either the Planning
Commission or Board of Directors .meeting were notified of the February 20,
2003 Commission hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised application subject to compliance
with the previous conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this report and
compliance. with the additional conditions submitted by the applicant as outlined.
in the "Staff Update".
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 20, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors and supporters
present. Staff presented the item and noted the conditions offered by the
applicant. Staff noted that a revised site plan had been presented two days prior
to the meeting. Staff commented that the revisions to the site plan were
relatively minor. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to
compliance with the previous conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this
report and compliance with the additional conditions submitted by the applicant.
Pastor Allen Emerson, of Maumelle Assembly of God Church, spoke of his
concerns with the nature of the road widening to take place adjacent to the
church. He stated he felt building the road without curb, gutter and sidewalk
would create drainage problems for the church and a safety issue for children.
During the ensuing discussion of the nature of the proposed street
improvements, Jim Lawson Director of Planning stated the school had agreed to
do off -site street improvements and staff did not feel it was reasonable to require
full improvements.
10
February 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: E Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7295
Chairman Nunnley asked if the City could get an in -lieu contribution for future
sidewalk construction. Mr. Lawson reiterated that the City could not require off -
site improvements. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles stated that the City would
be on shaky legal ground if off -site improvements were required.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rahman, Mike Hood of Public
Works stated the design of the street would have to be such that it did not create
drainage problems.
Chris Barrier, the applicant's attorney, stated the school had pledged to the
church that the road design would address drainage, curb cuts and pedestrian
issues.
Kerrie Keith, of 26 Portland Road and the parent of a child in the Montessori
School, spoke in support of the application. She presented several photographs
of the existing school site and the proposed new site.
Matt Warner, of 7 Chambard Lane, spoke in opposition.
Jason Sims, owner of B & H Construction, spoke of his concerns about traffic.
issues and his fear of future expansion of the school.
Jan Sherman, of 4 Waterview Court, chose not to speak.
David Dill, of 8 Waterview Court, stated
was opposed to it being located on Fors
about traffic.
he was not opposed to the school but
st Lane. He also expressed concerns
Kim Dill, of 8 Waterview Court, also spoke of traffic concerns.
Ms. Keith stated the parents would be instructed to use Taylor Loop Road, not
Katillus Road.
Mike Hood stated the school was not a huge traffic generator. He stated traffic..
related to the school was spread throughout the day_ Mr. Hood said the City's
concern of adequate access to the school had been addressed.
A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit subject to compliance
with all staff comments and conditions.
Commissioner Muse asked why the number of parking spaces had been
increased over the previous plan. Ms. Keith responded that there were several
programs during the year, when all of the parents attend, that create the need for
the parking.
A vote was then taken- on the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of
10. ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
11
September 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.
V.
September 14, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
5.
6.
FILE NO.: Z-6096-B
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.
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.
ARKLA: 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
0
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
981 but they do not have 98 already enrolled. He asked Mr.
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
N.
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.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-B
room, not a full gymnasium, dropping access to Montgomery
Road and revising the parking area in front of the new
building to accommodate not having access to Montgomery
Road.
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.) FIDE 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
Abe 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 1t 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.
15
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 O absent.
17
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
NAME: Chenal Valley Montessori School —
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chenal Valley Montessori School/Dorothy Moffett
PROPOSAL: A revision to the previously approved conditional use
permit is requested to allow for construction of a
second building on this R-2 zoned private school site.
SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Taylor Loop Road, between
Robyn Lane and Montgomery Road.
2, COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been at this site since 1996. The area is predominately
single family in nature with a mixture of older homes and many new
homes. The immediate area does also include two churches; located a
couple of blocks to the east and west of this site. This relatively small
private school has apparently been compatible with the neighborhood.
The addition of this one building, with no overall increase in total
enrollment, should not affect the school's continued compatibility with the
area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within
300 feet who could be identified and the Westchester-Heatherbrae,
Westbury and Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association were notified of this
request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via the two existing driveways, which will utilized
as one-way entry and exit. The site currently has 15 parking spaces and 7
more will be added under this proposal for a total of 22. Stacking space is
available for parents dropping off or picking up children. The school has
14 employees; 7 full-time and 7 working part-time hours throughout the
day. The total enrollment at the school will be 80 children. It appears the
proposed parking and drop-off areas are sufficient to meet the school's
needs.
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C Cont. _
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned property.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. The proposed land use would classify Taylor Loop and Montgomery
Road on the Master Street Plan as commercial streets. Dedicate right-
of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of the streets.
3. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development. (The plans indicate
improvements.)
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
5. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development.
6. Provide the estimated number of vehicles for peak hour traffic at the
school. Sufficient on -site parking must be provided to prevent blocking
of the through lanes of Taylor Loop Road.
6. UTILITY. FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
2
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C (Cont.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No Comments received.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 24, 2005)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding signage, number of employees, days and
hours of operation, site lighting, the total number of parking spaces and dumpster
location. The applicant was directed to provide a copy of the bill of assurance
and surveys of all tracts. Staff asked the status of one small tract of land which
appeared to not be owned by the applicant. Public Works, Landscape and Utility
Comments were noted. Public Works Staff requested the applicant provide the
estimated number of vehicles for peak hour traffic at the school.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by March 2, 2005. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
AFF ANALYSIS:
The Chenal Valley Montessori School is located on the R-2 zoned property at
15717 Taylor Loop Road.
On March 14, 1996, a conditional use permit was approved to allow for
construction of a 1,620 square foot, residential -style building and a 13-space
parking lot. The school was to have an enrollment of 30 students.
On April 30, 1998, a revision to the C.U.P. was approved to allow for expansion
of the student enrollment to 48 students. The second floor of the existing
building was finished -out to accommodate an office and two classrooms. No
other changes were proposed.
On June 22, 2000, the Commission denied a revised C.U.P. to allow for
construction of a two-story building on the site, which was to contain a
gymnasium and 4 classrooms. Also included was the addition of 4 parking
spaces and expanding the enrollment to 98 children. The applicant appealed the
denial to the Board of Directors. Prior to the Board hearing, the proposal was
modified slightly in that the building was reduced in scale. On August 15, 2000,
the Board voted to return the item to the Planning Commission. On September
14, 2000, the Commission approved the modified C.U.P. The opponents then
3
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C Cont.
appealed the decision to the Board. On November 8, 2000, the Board passed
Resolution No. 10,925 which rescinded the Commission's approval, at the
applicant's request.
On October 3, 2002, the Commission denied a C.U.P. which would have allowed
for the development of a new Montessori School on nearby Forest Lane to
replace this campus. The new, 5-acre campus was to include 3 buildings, 31
parking spaces and an enrollment of 110 students. The applicant appealed the
denial to the Board. Again, the proposal was modified prior to the Board
meeting. On January 21, 2003, the Board voted to return the item to the
Planning Commission. On February 20, 2003, the Commission approved the
C.U.P. There was no appeal. The applicant subsequently determined it was too
expensive to build the Forest Lane School.
The applicant now proposes to construct a second building on this Taylor Loop
Road site. The proposed building will be one-story in height and will be built in a
residential style with brick and vinyl siding and a pitched, shingled roof. The
building will contain two classrooms, an activity room and a school office. The
building will be 3,000 square feet in area. Associated with the new building is an
expanded parking lot and drop-off area. The school currently has an enrollment
of 80 children. Forty-five are located at this site and 35 are located in rooms at
the nearby Central Baptist Church. The applicant proposes to consolidate the
school to this site and to cease using the church. No increase in the school's
enrollment above 80 children is proposed.
On February 28, 2005, the applicant submitted responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. Signage is to consist of the existing ground -mounted
sign and identification signs on the buildings. The wall signs are to be
approximately 2' X 4' and will identify what classes or offices are located in each
building. The school has 14 employees. Seven are full-time and work from
7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Two employees work from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Three
employees work from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and one employee works from 3:30
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The school is open Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at either 11:15 a.m., 12:30 p.m. or 3:00
p.m. After 3:00 p.m., the children are in extended care. The children are picked
up at various hours in the afternoon. Site lighting consists of street lights and
one proposed light to be erected in the new parking area. The new light will be
shielded downward and into the site. The existing dumpster will be relocated and
screened as required by the Ordinance. New privacy fencing will be placed
between the adjacent residential property and the new building site.
The school is currently located on two lots (8 and 9) of the Pennwyck Addition.
The 1989 Bill of Assurance for Pennwyck Addition includes this statement:
All lots are to be used for single family residential dwellings only-
2
NO.: Z-6096-C (Cont.
In 1996, the bill of assurance was amended to permit Lots 8 and 9 to be used for
a "private educational institution". The current proposal includes the addition of
Lot 1, Pennwyck Addition, two tracts which are not in a platted subdivision and a
small, triangle -shaped remnant of property. The applicant has stated she will
pursue amending the bill of assurance to permit the use of Lot 1, Pennwyck
Addition for the school. The applicant is also to acquire the triangle -shaped
remnant from its current owner.
The applicant submitted the results of a study conducted of drop-off/pick-up
times. It shows there is a peak drop-off time between 8:00 a.m. — 8:30 p.m. and
another peak time between 3:15 p.m. — 3:45 p.m. when several children are
picked up. Even at these peak times, the number of vehicles is low enough that
there is adequate space on the site for the vehicles.
Staff is supportive of the proposed revised C.U.P. Allowing the addition of the
proposed, one-story building appears to be an appropriate expansion of the
school facility. There is no increase in total enrollment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION. -
Staff recommends approval of the requested Revised C.U.P. subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6.
2. Any new site lighting must be shielded downward and onto the site.
3. The dumpster must be appropriately located and screened as required by the
Code.
4. Use of the playground area is to be limited to daylight hours,
5. A 6-foot tall, wood privacy fence, with its finished side facing outward, must
be installed between the new development and any adjacent residential
properties.
6. The small, triangle -shaped piece of property must be acquired prior to any
building permit being issued.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 17, 2005)
The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. There were three objectors and
one supporter present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
y
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C Cont.
Dorothy Moffett gave a brief history of the Chenal Valley Montessori School. She
stated she began leasing space at Central Baptist Church approximately three
years ago and she wished to consolidate all classes at this one location. Ms.
Moffett stated most of her neighbors supported the school. She stated
enrollment at the school would be capped at 80 students. Ms. Moffett stated she
had never had to have police to regulate traffic at the school. She stated her
engineer had determined the new construction would not negatively impact
drainage in the area. Ms. Moffett stated she had taken care to design a building
that would fit into the neighborhood.
Chairman Rahman stated he had concerns about the enrollment numbers. He
noted the school began with an enrollment of 30 children and had been back
before the Commission several times to increase enrollment. He commented
that he did not believe Ms. Moffett would not be back asking to increase
enrollment again. Ms. Moffett responded that she had made the decision to
remain a small school; that there are other, large private schools in the general
area.
Jim Nettles, of 15808 Taylor Loop Road, spoke in opposition. He had presented
to the Commissioners a binder in which he had included copies of past
Commission minutes, photographs, a petition in opposition and other information.
Commissioner Floyd noted that the petition was from 2000 (the time of previous
application).
Mr. Nettles stated there had not been proper notice with previous applications
and there was still not proper notice to all property owners. He pointed out what
he felt were discrepancies in past actions and the staff report. Mr. Nettles
specifically commented on insufficient parking on the site, the increase in
enrollment and the use of Central Baptist Church classrooms for the Montessori
School. He voiced concerns about traffic; specifically cars speeding on Taylor
Loop Road and construction traffic related to developing subdivisions in the area.
Mr. Nettles also voiced concerns about stormwater run-off.
Mr. J. A. (Butch) Penney, of 29415 Penny Lane, spoke in support of the
application. He stated he had developed the Pennwyck Addition and had built
every home in the subdivision. He stated he had several family members who
lived near the school and he knew of no one who objected to the school.
Mr. Penney stated the school was a well run business that did not create traffic
problems. In response to a question from Commissioner Yates, Mr. Penny
stated the bill of assurance for Lot 1 had been amended to allow the school
expansion.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mike Hood of Public Works
stated the traffic count on Taylor Loop Road as of March 8, 2005 was 2,500
vehicles per day; well below the capacity of the street. He acknowledged there
was a speeding problem. Mr. Hood noted that Ms. Moffett had agreed to do all
required half -street improvements and needed drainage improvements.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the ages of the children at the school. Dana
Carney of the Planning Staff responded that the original 1996 approval was for
preschool and a subsequent revision to the C.U.P. raised the allowable age to 9.
He acknowledged there was no approval to have children up to 12 years of age
at this site. Ms. Moffett stated the 9-12 year old children were at the Central
Baptist Church site, where the approval for a private school did not have a
A
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C (Cont.
specific age limit. At the suggestion of the Commission, she amended her
application to allow children up to 12 years of age at this site.
Ms. Moffett stated that the traffic study was done having all of the school's
currently enrolled 76 children dropped -off at this site. She stated she felt that
was necessary to show true traffic numbers.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended, including all staff
comments and conditions. The motion was approved with a vote of 6 ayes,
2 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (Floyd).
7
March 17, 2005
ITEM IVO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
NAME: Chenal Valley Montessori School —
Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chenal Valley Montessori School/Dorothy Moffett
PROPOSAL: A revision to the previously approved conditional use
permit is requested to allow for construction of a
second building on this R-2 zoned private school site.
SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Taylor Loop Road, between
Robyn Lane and Montgomery Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The school has been at this site since 1996. The area is predominately
single family in nature with a mixture of older homes and many new
homes. The immediate area does also include two churches; located a
couple of blocks to the east and west of this site. This relatively small
private school has apparently been compatible with the neighborhood.
The addition of this one building, with no overall increase in total
enrollment, should not affect the school's continued compatibility with the
area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within
300 feet who could be identified and the Westchester-Heatherbrae,
Westbury and Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association were notified of
this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via the two existing driveways, which will utilized
as one-way entry and exit. The site currently has 15 parking spaces and
7 more will be added under this proposal for a total of 22. Stacking space
is available for parents dropping off or picking up children. The school
has 14 employees; 7 full-time and 7 working part-time hours throughout
the day. The total enrollment at the school will be 80 children. It appears
the proposed parking and drop-off areas are sufficient to meet the
school's needs.
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern perimeter of the site next to the residentially zoned property.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. The proposed land use would classify Taylor Loop and Montgomery
Road on the Master Street Plan as commercial streets. Dedicate right-
of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of the streets.
3. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development. (The plans indicate
improvements.)
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
5. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development.
6. Provide the estimated number of vehicles for peak hour traffic at the
school. Sufficient on -site parking must be provided to prevent blocking
of the through lanes of Taylor Loop Road.
6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
2
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: No Comments received.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 24, 2005)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding signage, number of employees, days and
hours of operation, site lighting, the total number of parking spaces and
dumpster location. The applicant was directed to provide a copy of the bill of
assurance and surveys of all tracts. Staff asked the status of one small tract of
land which appeared to not be owned by the applicant. Public Works,
Landscape and Utility Comments were noted. Public Works Staff requested the
applicant provide the estimated number of vehicles for peak hour traffic at the
school.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by March 2, 2005. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Chenal Valley Montessori School is located on the R-2 zoned property at
15717 Taylor Loop Road.
On March 14, 1996, a conditional use permit was approved to allow for
construction of a 1,620 square foot, residential -style building and a 13-space
parking lot. The school was to have an enrollment of 30 students.
On April 30, 1998, a revision to the C.U.P. was approved to allow for expansion
of the student enrollment to 48 students. The second floor of the existing
building was finished -out to accommodate an office and two classrooms. No
other changes were proposed.
On June 22, 2000, the Commission denied a revised C.U.P. to allow for
construction of a two-story building on the site, which was to contain a
gymnasium and 4 classrooms. Also included was the addition of 4 parking
spaces and expanding the enrollment to 98 children. The applicant appealed the
3
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
denial to the Board of Directors. Prior to the Board hearing, the proposal was
modified slightly in that the building was reduced in scale. On August 15, 2000,
the Board voted to return the item to the Planning Commission. On September
14, 2000, the Commission approved the modified C.U.P. The opponents then
appealed the decision to the Board. On November 8, 2000, the Board passed
Resolution No. 10,925 which rescinded the Commission's approval, at the
applicant's request.
On October 3, 2002, the Commission denied a C.U.P. which would have allowed
for the development of a new Montessori School on nearby Forest Lane to
replace this campus. The new, 5-acre campus was to include 3 buildings, 31
parking spaces and an enrollment of 110 students. The applicant appealed the
denial to the Board. Again, the proposal was modified prior to the Board
meeting. On January 21, 2003, the Board voted to return the item to the
Planning Commission. On February 20, 2003, the Commission approved the
C.U.P. There was no appeal. The applicant subsequently determined it was
too expensive to build the Forest Lane School.
The applicant now proposes to construct a second building on this Taylor Loop
Road site. The proposed building will be one-story in height and will be built in a
residential style with brick and vinyl siding and a pitched, shingled roof. The
building will contain two classrooms, an activity room and a school office. The
building will be 3,000 square feet in area. Associated with the new building is an
expanded parking lot and drop-off area. The school currently has an enrollment
of 80 children. Forty-five are located at this site and 35 are located in rooms at
the nearby Central Baptist Church. The applicant proposes to consolidate the
school to this site and to cease using the church. No increase in the school's
enrollment above 80 children is proposed.
On February 28, 2005, the applicant submitted responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. Signage is to consist of the existing ground -mounted
sign and identification signs on the buildings. The wall signs are to be
approximately 2' X 4' and will identify what classes or offices are located in each
building. The school has 14 employees. Seven are full-time and work from
7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Two employees work from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Three
employees work from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and one employee works from 3:30
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The school is open Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at either 11:15 a.m., 12:30 p.m. or
3:00 p.m. After 3:00 p.m., the children are in extended care. The children are
picked up at various hours in the afternoon. Site lighting consists of street lights
and one proposed light to be erected in the new parking area. The new light will
be shielded downward and into the site. The existing dumpster will be relocated
and screened as required by the Ordinance. New privacy fencing will be placed
between the adjacent residential property and the new building site.
4
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
The school is currently located on two lots (8 and 9) of the Pennwyck Addition_
The 1989 Bill of Assurance for Pennwyck Addition includes this statement:
All lots are to be used for single family residential dwellings only.
In 1996, the bill of assurance was amended to permit Lots 8 and 9 to be used for
a "private educational institution". The current proposal includes the addition of
Lot 1, Pennwyck Addition, two tracts which are not in a platted subdivision and a
small, triangle -shaped remnant of property. The applicant has stated she will
pursue amending the bill of assurance to permit the use of Lot 1, Pennwyck
Addition for the school. The applicant is also to acquire the triangle -shaped
remnant from its current owner.
The applicant submitted the results of a study conducted of drop-off/pick-up
times. It shows there is a peak drop-off time between 8:00 a.m. — 8:30 p.m. and
another peak time between 3:15 p.m. — 3:45 p.m. when several children are
picked up. Even at these peak times, the number of vehicles is low enough that
there is adequate space on the site for the vehicles.
Staff is supportive of the proposed revised C.U.P. Allowing the addition of the
proposed, one-story building appears to be an appropriate expansion of the
school facility. There is no increase in total enrollment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Revised C.U.P. subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6.
2. Any new site lighting must be shielded downward and onto the site.
3. The dumpster must be appropriately located and screened as required by the
Code.
4. Use of the playground area is to be limited to daylight hours.
5. A 6-foot tall, wood privacy fence, with its finished side facing outward, must
be installed between the new development and any adjacent residential
properties.
6. The small, triangle -shaped piece of property must be acquired prior to any
building permit being issued.
5
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 17, 2005)
The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. There were three objectors and
one supporter present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above.
Dorothy Moffett gave a brief history of the Chenal Valley Montessori School.
She stated she began leasing space at Central Baptist Church approximately
three years ago and she wished to consolidate all classes at this one location.
Ms. Moffett stated most of her neighbors supported the school. She stated
enrollment at the school would be capped at 80 students. Ms. Moffett stated she
had never had to have police to regulate traffic at the school. She stated her
engineer had determined the new construction would not negatively impact
drainage in the area. Ms. Moffett stated she had taken care to design a building
that would fit into the neighborhood.
Chairman Rahman stated he had concerns about the enrollment numbers. He
noted the school began with an enrollment of 30 children and had been back
before the Commission several times to increase enrollment. He commented
that he did not believe Ms. Moffett would not be back asking to increase
enrollment again. Ms. Moffett responded that she had made the decision to
remain a small school; that there are other, large private schools in the general
area.
Jim Nettles, of 15808 Taylor Loop Road, spoke in opposition. He had presented
to the Commissioners a binder in which he had included copies of past
Commission minutes, photographs, a petition in opposition and other
information. Commissioner Floyd noted that the petition was from 2000 (the time
of previous application).
Mr. Nettles stated there had not been proper notice with previous applications
and there was still not proper notice to all property owners. He pointed out what
he felt were discrepancies in past actions and the staff report. Mr. Nettles
specifically commented on insufficient parking on the site, the increase in
enrollment and the use of Central Baptist Church classrooms for the Montessori
School. He voiced concerns about traffic; specifically cars speeding on Taylor
Loop Road and construction traffic related to developing subdivisions in the area.
Mr. Nettles also voiced concerns about stormwater run-off.
Mr. J. A. (Butch) Penney, of 29415 Penny Lane, spoke in support of the
application. He stated he had developed the Pennwyck Addition and had built
every home in the subdivision. He stated he had several family members who
lived near the school and he knew of no one who objected to the school.
Mr. Penney stated the school was a well run business that did not create traffic
problems. In response to a question from Commissioner Yates, Mr. Penny
stated the bill of assurance for Lot 1 had been amended to allow the school
expansion.
March 17, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6096-C
In response to a question from the Commission, Mike Hood of Public Works
stated the traffic count on Taylor Loop Road as of March 8, 2005 was 2,500
vehicles per day; well below the capacity of the street. He acknowledged there
was a speeding problem. Mr. Hood noted that Ms. Moffett had agreed to do all
required half -street improvements and needed drainage improvements.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the ages of the children at the school. Dana
Carney of the Planning Staff responded that the original 1996 approval was for
preschool and a subsequent revision to the C.U.P. raised the allowable age to 9.
He acknowledged there was no approval to have children up to 12 years of age
at this site. Ms. Moffett stated the 9-12 year old children were at the Central
Baptist Church site, where the approval for a private school did not have a
specific age limit. At the suggestion of the Commission, she amended her
application to allow children up to 12 years of age at this site.
Ms. Moffett stated that the traffic study was done having all of the school's
currently enrolled 76 children dropped -off at this site. She stated she felt that
was necessary to show true traffic numbers.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended, including all staff
comments and conditions. The motion was approved with a vote of 6 ayes,
2 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (Floyd).
7
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
Dorothy Moffett
Chenal Valley Montessori School
15717 Taylor Loop Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
Date: March 18, 2005
Dear Ms. Moffett:
Case No. Z-6096-C
Location: 15717 Taylor Loop Road
This is to advise you that in connection with your application for a conditional use permit, the Planning
Commission at its meeting on March 17, 2005,
Approved your application as submitted.
Denied your application as submitted.
Deferred action to'the
Meeting.
X Approved your application with the following
conditions: See conditions outlined in attached Plamiing
Commission minutes.
This is an approval for the USE only and was the first step in the process. Based on this use approval,
you may submit your documentation and plans for review and permitting. All new and alteration
construction requires building permits be obtained at 723 West Markham, 2" d floor BEFORE any work
may begin. All pen -nits required for implementation of the conditional use must be obtained within three
(3) years of the date of the Commission's approval or the Conditional Use Permit shall be revoked.
Please be advised that there is an appeal period for 30 days from the date the Planning Commission made
its decision. Any permits obtained or construction performed during this 30 day appeal period is done at
your own risk and could be voided by the appeal process.
If you have any questions, please call me at 371-6817.
Sincerely,
Dana Carney, Zoning and SubetiElion 11 &
Department of Planning and Development
DC/aa
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
Certification of
Planning Commission Minutes
I certify that the attached are a true and correct copy of the March 17, 2005 minutes of
the public hearing of the Little Rock, Arkansas Planning Commission as relate to Chenal
Valley Montessori School Revised Conditional Use Permit located at 15717 Taylor Loop
Road; File No. Z-6096-C.
r6'
Dana Carney, Zoning an S bdivision Manager
July 15, 2005
February 28, 2005
Chenal Valley Montessori School
15717 Taylor Loop Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
Dear Ms. Moffett;
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requestd
So that our neighborhood can make informed decisions regarding your
current application for a revision to a Conditional Use Permit for
Chenal Valley Montessori School on Taylor Loop Road, please provide
answers and copies of documents herein requested. We hope to meet
this weekend to discuss the matter as there is very little time
before the scheduled hearing. Time is of the essence.
1. The Planning Commission staff advises that you propose building a
3000, structure. Is this correct? Please provide a set of
construction plans showing dimensions, specifically, the height.
3,029 sq. ft.
2. Are you requesting from the city of Little Rock variances) of any
type regarding your revision application?
no
3. what is the number of paid, free, barter (or otherwise), of
enrollees now attending Chenal Valley Montessori School located at
15717 Taylor Loop Road?
48::students
4. Same question as No. 3 for enrollees at Central Baptist Church,
also located n Taylor Loop Road?
28 students
5. What is the maximum number of paid, free, barter (or otherwise),
enrollees at 15717 Taylor Loop Road at any point in time since
the original Conditional use Permit was issued by the City of
Little Rock?
2003 - 52 students
6. Same question as No. 5 for enrollees at Central Baptist Church,
also located on Taylor Loop Road?
2002 - 29 students
7. Is Chenal Valley Montessori School, at either of the above noted
locations, subject to any regulations by the city, county, state
or FicenseedcQby gnii--,educational agency?
and full member of the American Montessori Society
8. Has or will Roy West be involved, directly or indirectly, with
this proposed revision request? This question goes to past,
present or future participation of any, kind.
Roy West will not be directly of indirectly involved with the building
Jim Nettles, designated by the group
15808 Taylor Loop Road LR 72223 (501) 868 5592
i
March 14, 1996
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO Z-6G95
NA..t,iE
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
ORD IN-IONCE DESIGN STKNDARD :
1. Site Location:
Moffett - Conditional Use
Permit
15717 Taylor Loop Road
James A Penny/Dorothy B. Moffett
A conditional use permit is
requested to allow for the
construction of a private
pre-school on this R-2 zoned
site.
The proposed site is located on the south side of
Taylor Loop Road, just east of Montgomery Road.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
This site is located within the Pennwyck Subdivision,
and is surrounded by single family residential zoning.
The Central Baptist Church and school are located two
blocks to the east of - this property. This proposed use
should not have an adverse affect on the surrounding
properties.
3. n-Site Drives and Parkin :
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan
exceeds minimum ordinance requirements.
One access point from Taylor Loop Road is proposed.
4. Screen_i.nciand Buffers:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
ordinance requirements.
A 6 foot high opaque screen either a wood fence with
its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings
is required to screen this site from the residential
properties to the north, south, east and west. In
addition to the screening and unless otherwise present
trees with an average spacing of 40 feet and shrubs
with an average spacing of 10 feet will be required
around the perimeter of the site.
March 14, 1996
SIIBDIVISION
ITEM NQ.: 12 �Cor[.t.] FILE NO.: Z-6096
Landscaping for vehicular use areas will have to be in
compliance with the Landscape Ordinance.
5. city Engineer comments:
Stogyrater detention will require redesign due to
change in runoff from designed facilities for the
residential subdivision and this commercial use.
6. u tility and Fire Department Comments:
Fire Department: The drive must be at least 20 feet
wide.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility: The sewer main
extension required to service property has not been
accepted at this time.
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
for a Montessori pre-primary elementary school to be
located in the Pennwyck Subdivision, lots eight and
nine, which is zoned R-2. This structure will be the
first structure built in Pennwyck. Vacant lots are to
the east, west, and south. The Central Baptist Church
and school are located two blocks further east.
A maximum enrollment of thirty students is anticipated
ranging in ages from three to six years. The hours of
operation will be primarily from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45
a.m. However, some children will be present to 2:15
p.m. and fewer still might remain till 5:00 p.m.,
depending on parental need.
The applicant is proposing construction of a 27 X 60
foot building, with a Williamsburg exterior and
extensive landscaping. This should prove consistent
with future Pennwyck homes. There will be a paved
parking area on the north side of the building and a
playground area in the rear yard. There will be 6 foot
privacy fencing around the perimeter of the site.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application subject
to the following conditions:
I. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
2
March 14, '1996
xT 12 n T?TLE Z-
3. Compliance with the utility and Fire Department =
Comments
4. These lots must be final platted prior to
application for building permit.
� Dx`JISrON CQ[ITT:2- CO.'-2,P-*:'7 . ( F FBRDkRY 22, 19 9 5 )
Dorothy Moffett was present, representing the application.
Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the Committee
with a revised site plan, stating that it had been reviewed
and approved by Bill Henry of Traffic Engineering.
David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that the revised site
plan is a positive change from the original site pla-1.
Mrs. Moffett offered the Committee a brief description of
the proposed use, including the type of school and nuuib.er
and age range of the students.
Bob BroN-n, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that areas
set aside for buffers and landscaping (on the revised play:)
meet ordinance requirements.
The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the
issue to the full Commission for final action.
PLA-NNING COM? [ISS :ON ACTION: (ILA-RCH 14, 19 9 6 )
The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. There was one
objector present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff,
presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval
with the conditions noted in the agenda "staff
recommendation". He stated that one letter of opposition
had been received by staff.
Dorothy Moffett addressed the Commission and gave a brief
description of her proposal.
Raymond Sanford spoke in opposition to the application. He
stated that the increased traffic was his main concern.
Mrs. Moffett explained to the Commission how the exterior of
the structure would look. She stated that it would look
like a house.
Commissioner Lichty asked Mrs. Moffett how she found the
land.
Mr. Moffett stated that she noticed the real estate sigr_ for
Pennwyck Subdivision and contacted the land owner.
3
March 14, 1996
U
1TEMI 2 t
Commissioner Brandon asked what a Montessori school was.
Mrs. Moffett gave a brief description of the Montessori
School.
Commissioner H a-,n asked about the traffic counts on Taylor
Loop Road.
David Scherer, of Public Works, addressed the Master Street
Plan requirements.
Commissioner Putnam asked what type of traffic issues were
involved.
Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that this proposed use
would not generate a significant amount of traffic.
A motion •was made to approve the application subject t❑ the
conditions noted in the agenda "staff recommendation". The
motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and
1 open position.
4
April 30, 1998
ITEM NO.: 28 FILE NO.: Z-6096-A
NAME: Chenal Valley Montessori
School - Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Paper Co./
Dorothy Moffett
PROPOSAL: The Montessori School is
requesting a revised
conditional use permit to
allow them to increase their
enrollment from 30 to 48
students on this R-2 zoned
property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
The school is located on the south side of Taylor Loop
Road, one lot east of Montgomery Road.
2. C
ompatibility with Neighborhood:
The Montessori School is an existing use in this R-2
Single Family zoned area permitted with a conditional
use permit in March 1996. It is located within the
Pennwyck Subdivision and is surrounded by single family
zoning on all sides. This revised conditional use
permit to increase enrollment should not have an
adverse affect on the surrounding properties, nor
should it have much affect on traffic due to a
staggered start and end time for various classes.
The Westchester Neighborhood Association was notified
of the public hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
The site has a single entrance and 13 on -site parking
spaces. That would satisfy the or !Fance requirement
for one space per employee (a total of six spaces); and
one space for load/unloading per each ten children (a
total of five spaces). No changes in drives or parking
April 30, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-A
are proposed and this does meet ordinance requirements
even for the increased enrollment.
4. screening and Buffers:
The plan submitted complies with ordinance
requirements and with what was previously approved by
the Planning Commission.
5. Public Works Comments:
No issues.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Water: No objection.
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
s
7. Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit to increase the enrollment of their existing
school from 30 to 48 students. The students' ages
range from two and a half to nine and the hours of
operation are primarily from 7:15 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. To accommodate the additional
students the applicant will finish the second floor
making an office and two classrooms. No change to the
exterior is expected except for an exterior open fire
escape to be added to the end and/or back of the
building.
To address concerns over increased traffic in the area
due to the school, a staggered drop-off and pick-up
time schedule is proposed. This prevents any period
when there would be a large influx of traffic because
of all students being dropped off or picked up at the
same time.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this application as long
as the staggered "drop-off and pick-up" is continued in
order to minimize impact on traffic.
2
April 30, 1998
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
FILE NO.: Z-6096-A
(APRIL 9, 1998)
Dorothy Moffett was present representing the application.
Staff presented the item with only a very brief discussion
r following regarding clarification of some points.
There being no issues, the Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(APRIL 30, 1998)
The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended
approval subject to compliance with the condition noted in
the staff recommendation. ivllits
7 Y
va'w
t;
F a..
3
Qj
-------------------
5' F
Y
;R
Ty' ACT
V,
af
TFACT I -k-
b,
— --- — ------- A--
J-
IMONTGOMEF\Y FZOAP
-J-cNL - -10H/",- [J,-)[
i
(T..42.0.6 z - C-1 09 (El - I
7117 TAY t. L F-7
c-orNFr, nF TAYLDLOOF
R � !; i
/ i.2 ,
R2
i L
J R2
Irrr J'��f � z. (• '
ICI
R2V '
re
I�
t
I
1 \L
`—
_
_
R2 ..
F
LL
R2
E71-
UO
-.W
R2
0
c
. Ca�c f•= l-6C?' hr 13
. 15717-l'aylo [ -� k1j)1:
June 22, 2000
ITEM NO:: 13
NAME:
LOCATION:
FILE NO.: Z-6096-B
Montessori School - Revised Conditional Use
Permit
15717 Taylor Loop Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Montessori School
PROPOSAL: To revise an existing conditional use permit
to add a building containing a.. c small
kitchen, and four elementary classrooms;
abandon unused utility easements, an -
ncr�se the rapacity of tude�s t
98
�.. 2a R--2 , Zama l ly Ras; icLential
`fin d propjr= at 15717 Taylor Loop Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. SITE LOCATION:
The existing school site is located at -the southeast corner
of Taylor Loop t�d 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 hew_.�=Lossed_
metal building unfortunat` would not look the same and
would have a more institutional look. The school use should
remaa.n compatible with the neighborhood, but the buildi�
style would not blend in as well.
The Wes tchester/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.
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-B .
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 .employe,es, 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. T/)
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: M1
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
2
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096-B
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) . Con's'truct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks wi-th 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 chil.dxen.
The Montessori school has existed --on this site since August
1�96. Tn April 1998 the Planning Commission approved an -
a -mended 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 f o r
increased enrollment have continued resulting in this
3
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. : 13 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z-6096-B
request for more space and increased capacity to 98
students.
The new two-story building would contain a. small xrasa;
kitchen, and four_c_ lass,rooms., 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.
A11 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 mi.nimizb 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 comptible 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 f oliowang con lions :
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.
4
June 22, 2000
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: _Z-6096-B
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 ��c�a_�.�ch�;�i�-i�ding,� then
Staff would support that waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
(JUNE 1, 2000)
Dorthy Moffett, school Director, and Roy West were present
representing application. St=gave a FrTel escrlp ion 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.
5