HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3423 Staff AnalysisDecember 17, 1979
Item No. 2 - Z-3423
Owner: Elech and Peggy Bewley
Address: 6501 Brookview Drive
Description: Lot 261, Brookwood Addition
Plat #4, Section A
Zoned: "A" One Family
Variances: Request permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22(4)(d) to establish a
day-care facility in a residential zone.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family Residential. Vacant.
Proposed Use of
Property: Day -Care Center
Staff Recommendation:
This request will permit the conversion of a single family
dwelling into a day-care facility. There are other day-care
facilities in this general area, principally along
West 65th Street.
Neighboring property owners have expressed concern over
possible bill of assurance violation and potential traffic
problems. Brookview Drive provides one of the major access
points to Brookwood Subdivision to the south.
Staff does not wish to initiate nonresidential development
in this area nor participate in the violation of a bill of
assurance. Staff recommends denial.
Board Action:
The applicant was present, addressed some of the issues
mentioned in the staff recommendation and cited that their
operation would be licensed for only 18 children. They
further addressed the traffic problems that staff had shown
concern about and discussed their plans for providing a new
driveway to permit safe pickup and delivery of children.
There were several objectors present. They were
Dorothy Brown, Tom Boyles, Louise Butcher and John Weaver.
All of these neighboring owners spoke in opposition to the
proposed Day -Care Center and cited primarily traffic
problems that they expected as a result of the peak hour
traffic to the Day -Care Center, as well as their attempts to
get to and from work at those same peak hours.
December 17, 1979
Board Action Cont:
The applicant was offered an opportunity and rebutted some
of the statements made by neighboring owners, and cited the
success of operation of a similar Day -Care Center that they
had on Geyer Springs Road in a similiar traffic
circumstance. After a brief discussion, the board moved to
deny the application. The motion was passed 5 ayes, 0 noes,
and 2 absent.