Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4548 Staff AnalysisOctober 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Oak Lane Day -Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4548) LOCATION: The east side of Oak Lane approximately 620 feet south of W. Markham Street (219 Oak Lane) OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathleen & John R. Bailey PROPOSAL: To convert an existing 1350 square feet single family residence to a day-care center (20-25 capacity) and provide five parking spaces on .26 acres of lane that is zoned "R-2 " ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a substandard residential street (Oak Lane). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is surrounded by single family uses on three sides with a duplex use located to the north. The I-430 District Plan shows this area as single family. There are, however, various uses located to the north of this lot. The uses on both sides of Oak Lane beginning with this lot and moving southward are all single family uses. The staff feels that a commercial day-care use would be detrimental to the single family area south of this lot. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to pave a 35' x 47.5' area in the front yard (includes existing driveway) to create five parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. October 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed commercial type day-care use would be detrimental to the single famly located to its immediate south (see Section 2 of this write-up). Oak Lane is a substandard street, and the proposed parking area is less than desirable. The applicant might wish to consider applying for a special use permit to care for 10 children or less. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Provide a circular drive or other method acceptable to the Traffic Engineer; and (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way and construct Oak Lane to City standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A discussion ensued as to the appropriateness of the proposed parking and the use itself. The applicant stated that he would work with the City Engineer on his proposed parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Two objectors were also present (Sharon Williams and Mary Ann Daley). The staff stated that they had received additional phone calls and letters of opposition to the proposal. The staff also stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that their application be amended to a special use permit. Staff stated that the amended proposal would allow a maximum of 10 children on-site and that a paved parking and drop off area would not be required. Staff also stated that street improvements would not be required under a special use permit, but that on-site residence would be required of the owners. The staff then recommended approval of a special use permit. The objectors expressed concern and opposition to a special use permit as well. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to deny the application as amended. October 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Oak Lane Day -Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4548) LOCATION: The east side of Oak Lane approximately 620 feet south of W. Markham Street (219 Oak Lane) OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathleen & John R. Bailey PROPOSAL: To convert an existing 1350 square feet single family residence to a day-care center (20-25 capacity) and provide five parking spaces on .26 acres of lane that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a substandard residential street (Oak Lane). 2. Compatibilitv with Neiqhborhood This property is surrounded by single family uses on three sides with a duplex use located to the north. The I-430 District Plan shows this area as single family. There are, however, various uses located to the north of this lot. The uses on both sides of Oak Lane beginning with this lot and moving southward are all single family uses. The staff feels that a commercial day-care use would be detrimental to the single family area south of this lot. 3. On -Site Drives and Parki The applicant is proposing to pave a 35' x 47-.5' area in the front yard (includes existing driveway) to create five parking spaces. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. October 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed commercial type day-care use would be detrimental to the single famly located to its immediate south (see Section 2 of this write-up). Oak Lane is a substandard street, and the proposed parking area is less than desirable. The applicant might wish to consider applying for a special use permit to care for 10 children or less. 6. City Engineerinq Comments (1) Provide a circular drive or other method acceptable to the Traffic Engineer; and (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way and construct Oak Lane to City standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A discussion ensued as to the appropriateness of the proposed parking and the use itself. The applicant stated that he would work with the City Engineer on his proposed parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Two objectors were also present (Sharon Williams and Mary Ann Daley). The staff stated that they had received additional phone calls and letters of opposition to the proposal. The staff also stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that their application be amended to a special use permit. Staff stated that the amended proposal would allow a maximum of 10 children on-site and that a paved parking and drop off area would not be required. Staff also stated that street improvements would not be required under a special use permit, but that on-site residence would be required of the owners. The staff then recommended approval of a special use permit. The objectors expressed concern and opposition to a special use permit as well. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to deny the application as amended. October 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAMF.� Oak Lane Day -Care Center Conditional Use Permit (Z-4548) LOCATION: The east side of Oak Lane approximately 620 feet south of W. Markham Street (219 Oak Lane) OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathleen & John R. Bailey PRnPOSAT.- To convert an existing 1350 square feet single family residence to a day-care center (20-25 capacity) and provide five parking spaces on .26 acres of lane that is zoned "R-2 . if ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a substandard residential street (Oak Lane). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is surrounded by single family uses on three sides with a duplex use located to the north. The I-430 District Plan shows this area as single family. There are, however, various uses located to the north of this lot. The uses on both sides of Oak Lane beginning with this lot and moving southward are all single family uses. The staff feels that a commercial day-care use would be detrimental to the single family area south of this lot. 3. On -Site Drives and Parki The applicant is proposing to pave a 35' x 47.5' area in the front yard (includes existing driveway) to create five parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. October 15, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed commercial type day-care use would be detrimental to the single famly located to its immediate south (see Section 2 of this write-up). Oak Lane is a substandard street, and the proposed parking area is less than desirable. The applicant might wish to consider applying for a special use permit to care for 10 children or less. 6. Cit Engineering Comments (1) Provide a circular drive or other -method acceptable to the Traffic Engineer; and (2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way and construct Oak Lane to City standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A discussion ensued as to the appropriateness of the proposed parking and the use itself. The applicant stated that he would work with the City Engineer on his proposed parking area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Two objectors were also present (Sharon Williams and Mary Ann Daley). The staff stated that they had received additional phone calls and letters of opposition to the proposal. The staff also stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that their application be amended to a special use permit. Staff stated that the amended proposal would allow a maximum of 10 children on-site and that a paved parking and drop off area would not be required. Staff also stated that street improvements would not be required under a special use permit, but that on-site residence would be required of the owners. The staff then recommended approval of a special use permit. The objectors expressed concern and opposition to a special use permit as well. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to deny the application as amended.