HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6312-A Staff AnalysisApril 15, 1999
ITEM NO.: 14
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
Brenda and Harold Brown - Revised
Conditional Use Permit
2100 Vancouver Drive
Brenda and Harold Brown
To amend an existing conditional use
permit at 2100 Vancouver Drive on'
this R-2, Single Family residential
zoned property, to convert a 16
child day care family home to a day
care center with a maximum capacity
of 50 children.
The existing house is located on the west side of Vancouver
Drive at the intersection with Deerwood Drive, north of
West 24th Street. This residential area is located west of
Boyle Park and east of Barrow Road.
2. CoTpatibility Compatibilitywith Neighborhood:
This residence/day care center is located in an area
exclusively residential in nature. Uses and zoning in this
area range from single-family surrounding this property, to
multifamily (MF -6) one block to the east.
Staff believes the continuation of the existing day care
center in the expanded capacity proposed would have adverse
effects on the surrounding properties and the neighborhood
due to the commercial nature of the day care center,
traffic increases, noise on the playground, and the
inability of the site to support parking and drop off
requirements.
The John Barrow and Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
Staff has received at the time of this writing 10 letters
in support of the proposal from residents in the area, and
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
two phone calls opposed to the use because of anticipated
negative impacts to the neighborhood.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing
residential two -car driveway.
Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee plus
on-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per
10 children. There would, therefore, be a requirement for
10 on-site parking spaces with 5 employees and 50 children
as originally submitted. The site cannot accommodate
10 parking spaces.
The applicant stated they may have to reduce the capacity
to 34 children based on Department of Human Services'
requirements. A decrease to 34 children and 4 employees
would reduce the parking requirement to 7 spaces, but even
that amount would be very difficult to accommodate on this
site. The applicant has stated that four (4) vehicles -can
be parked on the existing driveway although these parking
spaces do not meet the ordinance requirements for minimum
size and maneuvering area.
4. Buffers and Screening:
If additional parking is placed in the front, at least a
4 foot minimum buffer between the parking and the property
line and an additional 6 foot tall opaque screen in the
form of a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings should
be installed between the new parking and adjacent
residential property.
5. Public Works Comments:
Contact Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer, for drop-off and
driveway design. Staff would prefer to maintain the
residential appearance of this site.
6. Utility and Fire Department Comments:
Water: No objection.
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
2
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
ARKLA: Approved as submitted.
Entergy: No Comments received.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
CATA: This site is not currently served by LATA, but it is
near Route #3 - Baptist Medical Center.
7. Staff Analysis:
On August 7, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit to allow the occupant of 2100
Vancouver to operate a 16 child day-care in her home. The
applicant now proposes to convert the entire structure into
a day-care center with a maximum capacity of 50 children.
There would be no residential use of the structure.
The applicant is requesting a revised conditional use
permit to change the existing child day care family home
for 16 children to a non-residential child day care center
for from 34 to 50 children. The site is surrounded by a
quiet single family residential neighborhood with
multifamily MF -6 zoning a block to the east. One block to
the north the street ends in a cul-de-sac. Traffic is
generally light in this area.
The Browns are licensed for and have operated the day care
family home for 16 children at this location for the past
3 1-t! years. The operating hours would be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
.p.m., Monday through Friday. Three to five employees,
depending on the number of children, will come from off
site, but one of these is the Brown's daughter who lives
next door. No one would live on site.
There is a playground area located in the rear yard of the
residence surrounded by a 6 foot privacy fence. The
applicant is proposing possibly a two (2) square foot
ground or wall sign to identify the site.
Staff feels that this higher capacity day care center would
be an inappropriate commercial intrusion deep into this
quiet, primarily single-family, residential neighborhood.
The closest commercially zoned area is several blocks to
3
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
the west on John Barrow Road. The day care family home was
established to accommodate a small day care operation
within a residential area but still maintain the
residential nature. The current C.U.P. for 16 children is
already at the higher end of the capacity considered
appropriate for a day care family home, but is less
intrusive at that level than it would be with 34 or more
children, and maintains the residential nature with the
applicant continuing to live there.
Parking and drop off is another issue of concern to staff.
Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee plus
on-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per
10 children. There would, therefore, be a requirement for
10 on-site parking spaces with 5 employees and 50 children.
The site cannot accommodate 10 spaces. If the applicant
reduces the capacity to 34 children based on Department of
Human Services requirements and has 4 employees, the
parking requirement would reduce to 7 spaces, but even that
amount would be very difficult to accommodate on this site.
The applicant has stated that four (4) vehicles can be
parked on the existing driveway. These parking spaces
would not meet the ordinance requirements for minimum size
and maneuvering area.
In addition, the proposed change to a more commercial use
rather than residential will require a floor plan and other
details submitted to the Building Codes Division as
required for remodeling and upgrades for commercial
standards. Handicap accessibility will be required from
the paved parking surface to the interior and for the
sanitary facilities. The applicant will be required to
submit sufficient detail (written and pictorial) as to how
this will occur. Minimum accessibility standards are the
Cabo -Ansi A117.1-1992.
In summary, staff does not believe it would be appropriate
to use this site for any larger an operation than is
currently there for three primary reasons: 1)
Incompatibility with the residential nature of this area;
2) site is too small to accommodate required parking and
drop off areas; 3) anticipated extensive internal upgrades
required to provide a sufficient and safe facility for this
large of an operation.
4
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
8. Staff Recommendation:
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
primarily because of the inappropriateness and negative
impact of a commercial day care center of this magnitude
being inserted into a quiet residential neighborhood, and
also the inability of the site to support parking and drop-
off/pickup areas as required by ordinance.
While recognizing the need for day care facilities, staff
does not believe this is the place to locate one of this
capacity with the resulting negative impacts to the
neighborhood.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(MARCH 25, 1999)
Brenda Brown was present representing her application. Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff and Committee members reviewed with the applicant the
three main areas of concern: incompatibility with the
residential nature of neighborhood; parking and drop-off areas;
and anticipated magnitude of internal upgrades required.
Mrs. Brown commented that she appreciates the concerns, but that
she sees a large need for a lot of day care located right in the
neighborhood. She has a waiting list of about 20 children and
hopes she can still obtain approval.
There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the
proposal, encouraged Mrs. Brown to work closely with staff on
the issues and agreed to forward the application to the full
Commission for final resolution.
STAFF UPDATE:
Mrs. Brown did discuss some of the issues with staff, but our
recommendation has not changed.
5
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 15, 1999)
Brenda Brown was present representing her application. There
were four registered objectors and three supporters present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation for denial
primarily because of the inappropriateness and negative impact
of a commercial day care center of this magnitude being inserted
into a quiet residential neighborhood, and also the inability of
the site to support parking and drop-off/pickup areas as
required by ordinance. While recognizing the need for day care
facilities, staff did not believe this was the place to locate
one of this capacity with the resulting negative impacts to the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Brown explained that she felt it was appropriate to the
area because the need was there as demonstrated by her having a
waiting list of about 20 children needing care. Also, she
stated the concerns about increased traffic should be decreased
by having some children picked up by a van and by the fact that
her children are not all dropped off during "rush hour" times.
She showed a copy of her sign -in log to show how the drop-
off/pickups were spread out through the day.
Mr. Rodney Williams, Mrs. Janette Smith, Mrs. Valeria Freeman
all spoke in favor of the proposal emphasizing primarily the
quality of care Mrs. Brown has provided. Mrs. Smith is a next
door neighbor and stated that she had experienced no problems or
negative impacts of any kind due to the current operation.
Annette Fisher spoke in opposition to the proposal. She
emphasized the petition of 31 names she submitted of people.
opposed to the proposal for the reasons of increased traffic,
congestion at the site during peak drop-off/pickup times,
limited access through the area due to only two ways in or out,
increased noise, health and safety issues of having so many
children in the single family home, potential crime increases
and property value decrease.
Isaac Ross spoke in opposition due to his concern over this
proposal making this a commercial area.
Shirley Basey spoke in opposition emphasizing that since there
are no sidewalks in this area and many children walk up and down
the street going to a nearby school bus stop at 22nd Street, the
2
April 15, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -6312-A
increased traffic to the day care would raise the safety risks
to those children.
Michael Handy spoke in opposition primarily due to the increased
traffic and noise, and changing the residential nature of the
house to a commercial business.
Commissioner Nunnley asked for a direct response to Mr. Ross's
question as to whether approval of this request would change the
area to commercial. Staff and Commissioner Earnest responded
that this was only a use issue as a C.U.P. and would not change
the zoning to commercial if approved and also that the C.U.P.
would stay with the property. Commissioner Nunnley also made
the point with the applicant that the size of operation she had
requested combined with the fact she won't be living, there added
to the commercial nature that people are opposed to.
Commissioner Berry asked if the applicant had sought any other
location for the larger day care center. Mrs. Brown said she
had not. He added that the size of this requested proposed use
would make it commercial in nature and have a tangible negative
impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioners Faust and Rahman also spoke to the point that the
size proposed takes it away from a day care family home to a
commercial operation which they agree would be inappropriate for
this area. They added encouragement to the applicant to look
for appropriate space to develop the larger operation.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted. The
motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays, and 1 absent.
7