HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5221 Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
Name:
Location:
Warren Road Daycare Center
Conditional Use Permit (Z-5221)
The west side of Warren Road
between Elmore and Woodfield
Roads (#30 Warren Road)
Owner/Applicant: Charles and Yuvonne Bowers
PROPOSAL:
To convert an existing 2,386 +/- square foot accessory
building to a daycare center with a capacity of 15-25
children (age 6 weeks to 3 years) with the hours of
operation of 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on 1.45 +/- acres of
land that is zoned "R-2" (also contains one single family
structure).
Ordinance Design Standards:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a collector street (Warren Road).
2. Com.p_a_t i b_i l_ i t wi_th..-Nei.ghbo„r hood
The site is abutted by single family in all directions
with side yard relationships both north and south, a
front yard relationship to the east, and a rear yard
relationship to the west. The residential area is a
well established older neighborhood with some larger
than typical lots and homes. The site in question is
quite large (1.45 +/- acres) and abuts a Master Street
Plan collector street (Warren Road). The site has a
long, gravel, semi -circular drop-off drive and a
privacy fence that will screen the proposed play area
and daycare building. The proposed daycare building is
rather large (2,386 +/- square feet) and is located
adjacent to the rear and side property lines. The
adjacent neighbors have indicated that they work at
night and sleep during the day. The nearest
neighboring residential structure would, however, be in
excess of 100 feet away.
1
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 (Continued)
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site contains a gravel semi -circular drop-off drive
as well as gravel area adjacent to the house and
daycare building large enough to accommodate the two
spaces that would be required for the proposed use.
4. Screening and_._Buff.ers
The site contains an existing 7 foot board screening
fence on the north, east and south side of the proposed
daycare building.
5. Analysis
The staff has a number of concerns with this proposed
daycare facility. The concerns are: (1) the building
is an accessory building and would mean that there
would be two uses on the same residential property;
(2) the accessory building is not located in the center
of the property, but is almost adjacent to the property
lines (5 feet side yard, and 4 feet rear yard setbacks
respectively); (3) that Warren Road is not presently
constructed as a collector and will probably not be
since the land has already been developed; (4) the
surrounding residential neighborhood is well
established; (5) some residents have objected to the
possible daytime noise created by automobiles dropping
off and picking up the children and by the children
playing outside; (6) a daycare of this size would
necessitate employees coming to the site to work; (7) a
facility of this type would be better located in a
mixed residential and business location instead of a
single family area; and (8) an existing daycare center
(nonconforming use) is located almost directly across
Warren Road (the east side of Warren Road approximately
250 feet south of this site).
6. C i t y Engi_nee r Comment s
(1) Pave the drive and parking area; and (2) dedicate
the right-of-way for the length of the frontage on
Warren Road to meet City collector street standards.
2
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.. 9 (Continued)
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff has worked with the applicants and they have
amended the application to include the following:
(1) to limit the children to pre-school age; and (2) to
limit the capacity to 15 to 25 children. However, due
to the business nature of the use and the negative
impact on the neighborhood, the staff recommends denial
of the application.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff told the Committee
that they were recommending denial of the application due to
land use considerations, and that there were some
extenuating circumstances regarding the proposal. The
applicant stated that they had received a building permit
and a privilege license from the City, and that they had
taken a $15,000_construction loan to convert the building to
a daycare. The Committee questioned the staff about the
situation. The staff stated that they had hoped to deal
only in land use questions even though there was an issue of
an alleged nonconforming use, the basis on which the
original building permit and privilege license were issued.
The staff further stated that the building permit and
privilege license may have been issued erroneously. Mr.
Stephen Giles, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that he
would look into the situation and have a status report for
the Commission at its public hearing on the 19th of
September. In addition, the applicant stated that they had
talked to the neighbors all around the area and had found
only one in opposition. The applicant further stated that
they were not sure they were ready to commit to the paving
of the drive and parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 19, 1989)
.. .... ..._ ............................................ .
The applicant was present as were objectors. The staff
stated that they had received information that indicated
that 60 feet of right-of-way was in place on Warren Road.
The staff further stated that based upon land use
considerations, it was recommending denial of the
application. The staff also acknowledged that there was a
possible legal concern over an alleged nonconforming status
3
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 (Continued) - -
of the building in question. Mr. Steve Giles, Assistant
City Attorney, stated that the land use question and the
nonconforming status issue were separate and that the
Commission should only make a decision based upon land use.
The staff then called on Mr. Jim Hathcock, Chief of
Environmental Codes, to inform the Commission on the
nonconforming use issue. Mr. Hathcock stated that the
Bowers had received a remodeling permit and that a privilege
license was issued on April 19, 1989 based upon
nonconforming use information supplied by the applicants,
the Bowers. Mr. Hathcock further stated a neighbor had
called to inquire about the activity on the site and had
supplied information that contradicted the information upon
which the privilege license had been issued. After further
investigation, Mr. Hathcock said he concluded that the
alleged nonconforming use could not be substantiated in
accordance with City procedure. He then revoked the
privilege license August 1, 1989.
Mrs. Yuvonne Bowers, the applicant, stated that they had
complied with everything the City had asked. She also
stated that she had never received anything in writing
revoking her privilege license and that she had filed for a
conditional use permit as she was advised to do by the City.
She further stated that the State had told her that she had
the capacity to keep up to 46 children on her site, but that
she was requesting a maximum of only 25 children. In
addition, she said she would: limit the children kept to
pre-school age only; limit the hours of operation from
6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and pave the
drive and parking area if given adequate time. Finally,
Mrs. Bowers submitted a petition containing 40 names in
favor of her daycare proposal.
Ms. Pat Brown of 10602 Diamond Drive spoke in favor of the
daycare operation. She stated that quality daycare service
was hard to find and that this daycare was necessary for the
southwest Little Rock area. Mr. Alfred Brown of
85 Lancaster Road also spoke in favor of the need for
quality daycare and this application in particular.
Mr. Tommy Crow of #26 Warren Drive, the property adjacent to
the proposed daycare located to the south, spoke in
opposition to the proposal. He stated that the noise caused
by cars on the gravel drive and the children would adversely
affect his property and its value. He also stated that
4
September 19, 1989
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No...9_(ContinuedJ
there were other available daycare operations in the area
such as the existing nonconforming facility located across
the street from him. In addition, Mr. Crow presented a
petition to the Commission that contained approximately
100 names in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. James S. Young of #24 Valley Drive, whose house is
located adjacent to this site approximately 460 +/- feet to
the west, also spoke in opposition. He stated that there
were already daycare centers in the area. The Commission
then asked for those in attendance that opposed the proposal
to stand. A total of 12 persons stood.
Mr. Charles Bowers, the applicant, stated that the area
already had mixed uses such as the apartment complex north
of his house on Warren Road. He also pointed out that
Watson Elementary School was located just to the north of
his proposal.
A general discussion ensued. The Commission informed the
applicant and the objectors that their decision could be
appealed to the Board of Directors if the appeal were filed
within thirty days of the Commission's action. The
Commission then voted 6 ayes, 1 no, and 4 absent to deny the
proposal.
5