Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6227 Staff AnalysisJanuary 23, 1997 ITEM NO.• A FILE NO.: Z-6227 Name- Location• Owner/Applicant: Proposal: STAFF ANALYSTS Howard Day -Care Family Home Special Use Permit 6612 Juniper Road Erma Lee Howard A special use permit is requested to allow the occupant of 6612 Juniper Road to operate a day-care family home. The property is zoned R-2. The occupant of the single family residence located at 6612 Juniper Road is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow her to operate a day-care family home at that address. A day-care family home is defined by the Ordinance as "any facility which provides childcare in a family setting within a caregiver's family residence in accordance with provisions of licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. This use is intended to fill that level of child care between unregulated babysitting and day care center." Day-care family homes require a special use permit in the R-2 district. The general purpose of Section 36-54 states: "Special use permits provide a method of control over certain types of land uses which, while not requiring the full review process of the conditional use permits, do require some review procedure which allows for determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are proposed and for public comment." These uses include bed and breakfast hotels, family care facilities and day care family homes. The site and location criteria established by the Zoning Ordinance for day care family homes are as follow: a. This use may be located only in a single-family home, occupied by the care giver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. C. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers. January 23, 1997 ITEM NO.• A Cont. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. 6612 Juniper Road is located within the Cloverdale single family residential neighborhood. All surrounding properties are occupied by single family homes. The subject property contains a one story, brick and frame residential structure. The side and rear yard area is enclosed by a 4 foot tall chain-link fence. Day Care Family Homes are intended to fill the need for childcare services between babysitting and the formal setting of a day-care center. The concept is to allow the occupant of a single family home to keep from 6-10 children (including the care -giver's) in a residential setting. The primary use of the property is to remain single family residential. Since the property is to remain residential in nature, items associated with the more formal day care center type use, such as signage and increased parking are neither required nor permitted. There are larger, day-care centers located to the east of the Cloverdale Neighborhood, on West 83rd Street and on Frenchman's Lane. The applicant has requested permission to place a portable sign on the property giving the name of the child care business, hours of operation, telephone number and ages of children accepted. The sign is proposed to be placed out in the morning and removed in the evening. Proposed hours of operation are 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Staff cannot support allowing the requested sign. The concept of a day-care family home discourages the use of signage since the property is to retain its single family residential nature. Section 36-551 of the Sign Code allows only one freestanding, ground -mounted sign denoting the name and address of the occupant of the home in residential zones. The sign may not exceed one square foot in area or six feet in height. Temporary signs that do not meet the standards for freestanding permanent signs are specifically prohibited by Section 36-543. 2 January 23, 1997 ITEM NO.: A Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow the occupant of 6612 Juniper Road to operate a day-care family home subject to compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section 36-54 of the Code of Ordinances. Staff does not recommend allowing the applicant to have the requested sign. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were two objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had circulated the notice of public hearing on December 2, 1996; 3 days prior to the public hearing rather than the required 15 days. There was then a brief discussion concerning either deferring the item or waiving the bylaws and hearing it. Troy Laha, of #7 Althea Court, addressed the Commission. He noted that he and one other objector had made the effort to appear at the meeting. He stated that he did not object to deferring the item to allow for proper notification. At this point, the item was moved to a later point in the agenda to see if the applicant would arrive; she never did. When the item was brought back up, Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission. She stated that the League had always felt strongly that proper notification was inherently necessary. She recommended deferring the item. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 1997 meeting with the requirement that the applicant renotify in the required manner. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Adcock). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997) The applicant was not present. There were several objectors present and several letters of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff informed the Commission that new notices had not been presented. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission that at 2:55 p.m. on January 21, 1997, the applicant had called and stated that she wanted to withdraw the application. Ms. Howard had indicated that she would keep less children than the number which required a Special Use Permit. 3 January 23, 1997 ITEM -NO.: A Cont. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 4