HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6717 Staff AnalysisAugust 19, 1999
ITEM NO.: 20
FILE NO: Z-6717
NAME: House of Harmony Day Care Center -
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 513 Thayer Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Latarsha & John Epperson
PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit to allow
a single -section manufactured building to be
installed on the rear of property Zoned R-3,
Single Family Residential at 513 Thayer
Street, to provide more space for the
existing home daycare, turning it into a Day
Care Center for 18 children maximum.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. SITE LOCATION:
This site is on the east side of Thayer Street, at the
intersection with 6th Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned, and surrounded by other property also
Zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. It is a residential
neighborhood consisting of single and two family
residences. This lot is long, but not very wide. It would
be very crowded to try and put parking, a playground, and
an additional 12 x 32 foot structure in the back yard. The
primary drop-off access would be through a partially paved
10 foot wide alley in the rear because of the distance from
the street and rise in grade approaching from the front.
Staff believes that because of site size and access
constraints at this location that this increase in child
capacity from a Day Care Family Home to a Day Car Center
for 18 children is not a good use of this site or
compatible with the neighborhood at this location.
The Capitol Hill and Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
August 19, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO: Z-6717
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is only walk up access from Thayer street in the
front. There is a partially paved 10 foot wide alley
accessing the rear from 6th Street. Since the alley is only
10 feet wide, access and maneuvering in and out of parking
in the rear would be difficult.
The parking requirements would be four spaces, two for
employees and two drop-off spaces for the 18 children. The
site can accommodate a maximum of three spaces in the rear
without severely cutting into the limited rear yard.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The playground area should be screened from the residential
property to the north. This screen can be a 6 Foot high
opaque wood fence with its face side directed outward or
dense evergreen plantings.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a. Dedication of right-of-way is required to 10 feet from
centerline of alley.
b. Pave alley for total length from 6th Street to Thayer Street to
allow access to parking lot and sufficient backup space (30
feet required for 45 -degree parking).
6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS:
Water: No objection.
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
ARKLA: Approved as submitted.
Entergy: No comments received.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
Pa
August 19, 1999
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.)
FILE NO: Z-6717
CATA: CATA Route #1, Pulaski Heights, #8, Rodney Parham,
and #22, Pleasant Valley, are near this site; approved for
transit purposes as submitted.
7. STAFF UPDATE:
On August 6, 1999, Staff received a letter from the
applicant requesting withdrawal of this application.
Therefore, Staff did not complete any further analysis.
8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for withdrawal.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
(JULY 29, 1999)
Latarsha and John Epperson were present representing their
application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Staff reviewed with the Committee and the applicants the
constraints and requirements to use this site as proposed.
Providing enough parking, playground, and drop-off area, plus
paving the alley to provide adequate access were presented as
the most difficult and expensive parts of the challenges with
this site.
There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item on to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 19, 1999)
The applicants submitted to Staff on August 6, 1999, a written
request for withdrawal of their proposal. Therefore, no one was
present representing the application. There were no registered
supporters or objectors present. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval of the applicant requested
withdrawal.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 nays, and 5 absent.
3