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.