Loading...
Z-3870-B Staff AnalysisApril 4, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 Name: All My Children Daycare Center (Z -3870-B) Location: South of the intersection of Mabelvale Cutoff and Woodbridge (8315 Mabelvale Cutoff) Owner/Applicant: Vance Vermillion/Zane Vermillion PROPOSAL: To construct a 2400 square foot daycare center (50 capacity -- structure to be designed like a house with rock and cedar exterior) and five paved parking spaces on 2.0 acres of land that is zoned "R-2"/Conditional Use Permit (the property has previously been approved for a small church). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a minor arterial (Mabelvale Cutoff) and a residential street (Brimer Road). 2. Compatibil_it_y with Neighborhood The Geyer Springs West Neighborhood Plan calls for single family in this area. The proposal (50 capacity) is reaching a commercial standard. The site is abutted by single family/vacant land to the north, single family to the south and east, and vacant land located to the west. The proposed site location (on the southwest corner of the property) as well as the intensity make this proposal incompatible with the surrounding area (access only from a sub -standardly constructed resident street -- Brimer Road). 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains a paved drop-off area (from Brimer Road) and five paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers None have been proposed. April 4, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 (Continued) 5. Analysis The Staff has concerns about the compatibility of this use (as sited) with the surrounding area (see note #2). The large capacity of 50 children as well as the location (access only from Brimer Road -- substandardly constructed as well as being located in a right angle curve) would be detrimental to the adjacent single family area (especially to the south). 6. City Engineering Comments Dedicate and construct Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards (one-half of 90 foot right-of-way) and Brimer Road to residential street standards (one- half of 50 foot right-of-way). 7. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Staff explained to the applicant the issue of street improvements. The applicant agreed to the dedicate any additional right-of-way on Mabelvale Cutoff and Brimer Road but asked for a variance from the construction requirement. Staff also explained that a Conditional Use Permit for a church had been approved on this site and, in their opinion, would remain valid if this Conditional Use Permit was denied or approved. Finally, there was a lengthy discussion regarding the location of the proposed structure. The Staff stated that the optimum location, if there was adequate site distance, would be :`ronting on Mabelvale Cutoff and toward the west property line. The City Engineer stated that they would check the site distance on the property and assist the applicant so that he could submit a revised site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present but left prior to the application being heard. There were four objectors. Mr. Lee Snyder spoke in opposition of the proposal and presented 50 letters of neighborhood opposition. Staff stated that they had received one letter of opposition from Mr. George Toombs. April 4, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 (Continued) Staff also stated that they had discovered that a final plat had been filed and that the necessary right-of-way on Brimer Road and Mabelvale Cutoff had been dedicated. The Staff further stated that due to the unusual intersection north of the property and the poor site distance on Mabelvale Cutoff, the City Traffic Engineer recommended that no access be allowed to Mabelvale Cutoff. The City Engineer then stated that if the project were approved, one-half of the street improvements on Brimer Road for the length of the usage of the property would he required. Finally, the Staff stated that approval of this project should negate and supersede the previously approved conditional use permit and that denial of the proposal should leave the previously approved conditional use permit intact. The Staff then recommended denial as filed. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to deny the project.