HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4476 Staff AnalysisJuly 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Gum Springs Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4476)
LOCATION: The South Side of Gum Springs
Road Just West of Larch Road
(4707 Gum Springs Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dana M. and Don E. Stuart
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing single family structure to a day-care
center (capacity 39 children) by constructing a
36.3' x 12.3' addition and an entranceway as well as seven
paved parking spaces on a lot (12,500 square feet) that is
zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is adjacent to a collector street (Gum
Springs Road) and is relatively flat.
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded by single family uses but is
separated from a single family use (north) by Gum
Springs Road. The staff feels that a well designed
day-care use adjacent to a collector street is
compatible. The staff feels that this particular
proposal may be too intense for the site.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one paved entrance (from Gum
Springs Road) and seven paved parking spaces.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The applicant has proposed a wood privacy fence
adjacent (east) to the proposed parking area.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff is supportive of the proposed use but has
reservations about the intensity of the development.
The staff feels that the capacity of the day-care
should be reduced (to possibly 25 students) which in
turn would reduce the required parking area. A
reduction in parking area would help to facilitate the
design of a drop off site for the children.
City Engineering Comments
(1) Seven parking spaces cannot be approved as shown;
the vehicles could not get out;
(2) A landscaping strip is required on the east side
of the parking are; and
(3) How will the children be dropped off and picked
up?
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) reduce
the day-care capacity; and (2) comply with the City
Engineering comments numbered 1-3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A discussion ensued over the
proposed capacity in a drop off area. The staff stated that
a capacity of 30 would require six parking spaces. The
applicant apparently agreed to submit a revised parking
plan, access plan and landscape plan. The issue of the
proposed capacity of the day-care center was not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were six objectors
present. The objectors presented petitions and letters that
totally opposed the proposed day-care center. The applicant
stated that she might lower the proposed capacity and that
she would build a 6 -foot privacy fence around the entire
property. The applicant also stated that she would provide
a semicircular drop off area for the children. A short
discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 0 ayes,
6 noes, 5 absent to disapprove this proposal.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Gum Springs Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4476)
LOCATION: The South Side of Gum Springs
Road Just West of Larch Road
(4707 Gum Springs Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dana M. and Don E. Stuart
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing single family structure to a day-care
center (capacity 39 children) by constructing a
36.3' x 12.3' addition and an entranceway as well as seven
paved parking spaces on a lot (12,500 square feet) that is
zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is adjacent to a collector street (Gum
Springs Road) and is relatively flat.
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded by single family uses but is
separated from a single family use (north) by Gum
Springs Road. The staff feels that a well designed
day-care use adjacent to a collector street is
compatible. The staff feels that this particular
proposal may be too intense for the site.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
The applicant is proposing one paved entrance (from Gum
Springs Road) and seven paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed a wood privacy fence
adjacent (east) to the proposed parking area.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analvsis
The staff is supportive of the proposed use but has
reservations about the intensity of the development.
The staff feels that the capacity of the day-care
should be reduced (to possibly 25 students) which in
turn would reduce the required parking area. A
reduction in parking area would help to facilitate the
design of a drop off site for the children.
City Engineering Comments
(1) Seven parking spaces cannot be approved as shown;
the vehicles could not get out;
(2) A landscaping strip is required on the east side
of the parking are; and
(3) How will the children be dropped off and picked
up?
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) reduce
the day-care capacity; and (2) comply with the City
Engineering comments numbered 1-3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A discussion ensued over the
proposed capacity in a drop off area. The staff stated that
a capacity of 30 would require six parking spaces. The
applicant apparently agreed to submit a revised parking
plan, access plan and landscape plan. The issue of the
proposed capacity of the day-care center was not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:,
The applicant was present. There were six objectors
present. The objectors presented petitions and letters that
totally opposed the proposed day-care center. The applicant
stated that she might lower the proposed capacity and that
she would build a 6 -foot privacy fence around the entire
property. The applicant also stated that she would provide
a semicircular drop off area for the children. A short
discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 0 ayes,
6 noes, 5 absent to disapprove this proposal.
s
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Gum Springs Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4476)
LOCATION: The South Side of Gum Springs
Road Just West of Larch Road
(4707 Gum Springs Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Dana M. and Don E. Stuart
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing single family structure to a day-care
center (capacity 39 children) by constructing a
36.3' x 12.3' addition and an entranceway as well as seven
paved parking spaces on a lot (12,500 square feet) that is
zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is adjacent to a collector street (Gum
Springs Road) and is relatively flat.
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded by single family uses but is
separated from a single family use (north) by Gum
Springs Road. The staff feels that a well designed
day-care use adjacent to a collector street is
compatible. The staff feels that this particular
proposal may be too intense for the site.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking.
The applicant is proposing one paved entrance (from Gum
Springs Road) and seven paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed a wood privacy fence
adjacent (east) to the proposed parking area.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff is supportive of the proposed use but has
reservations about the intensity of the development.
The staff feels that the capacity of the day-care
should be reduced (to possibly 25 students) which in
turn would reduce the required parking area. A
reduction in parking area would help to facilitate the
design of a drop off site for the children.
City Engineering Comments
(1) Seven parking spaces cannot be approved as shown;
the vehicles could not get out;
(2) A landscaping strip is required on the east side
of the parking are; and
(3) How will the children be dropped off and picked
up?
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) reduce
the day-care capacity; and (2) comply with the City
Engineering comments numbered 1-3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A discussion ensued over the
proposed capacity in a drop off area. The staff stated that
a capacity of 30 would require six parking spaces. The
applicant apparently agreed to submit a revised parking
plan, access plan and landscape plan. The issue of the
proposed capacity of the day-care center was not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were six objectors
present. The objectors presented petitions and letters that
totally opposed the proposed day-care center. The applicant
stated that she might lower the proposed capacity and that
she would build a 6 -foot privacy fence around the entire
property. The applicant also stated that she would provide
a semicircular drop off area for the children. A short
discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 0 ayes,
6 noes, 5 absent to disapprove this proposal.