HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5077 Staff AnalysisOctober 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
Item ... N...o...�.......9_._-
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER(.APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Kiddie Castle Day Care (Z-5077)
The west side of Izard Street
200 feet south of 21st Street
(2112 Izard Street)
Larry Ester/Shawn Strickland
To convert an existing single family structure (two story)
to a day care center (20 child capacity) on 0.17 +/- acres
of land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a residential street (Izard Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is abutted by single family uses on the north,
south, and east, and a duplex to the west. The lot is
situated near the middle of the block and is quite
narrow (50 feet). The location of the lot and its
narrowness tend to exacerbate any negative impact to
adjoining properties. The Staff does not think that
the proposed use would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drivesand Par................
_ _. g
The applicant is proposing two parking spaces and a
drop-off area via an unplatted alleyway located on the
west -side of the property.
4. Screen i ng "and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees
and shrubs as landscaping.
October 4, 1988
SUBDIVISIONS
It em No .___9 ( C o n .t_... n.0 ed
5. Analysis
The Staff has reservations regarding the
appropriateness of the use in the proposed location.
The Staff feels that the location of the lot in the
middle of the block and its narrow configuration
detracts from its potential as an appropriate site.
Finally, the proposed access is an alleyway (physically
open but not platted) that is not in good condition.
6. City En iq neer i nA__Comments
The City Engineer opposes the use of the alley for a
drop-off area (due to potential maintenance problems).
7. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
4,
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There was general discussion
about the Staff's recommendation. The applicant was
informed by the Committee that the issue was land use and
that the full Commission would vote on the proposal. The
Staff stated that it would likely be able to support a
proposal for ten or less children capacity similar to a home
occupation (Special Use Permit).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Staff reiterated its recommendation of denial of the
proposal as submitted. A discussion ensued. The Staff
stated that it could support a revised proposal that
contained no drop-off area in the alley and a ten child
maximum capacity. The applicant agreed to accept the
Staff's revised proposal. The Commission then voted
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the revised proposal
as recommended by the Staff and agreed to by the applicant.