Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6942 Staff AnalysisJanuary 25, 2001 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6942 NAME: Deloney Adult Day Care - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 7210 Milford Drive OWNERAPPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Ronnie and Rita Deloney PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for an adult day care center for up to 10 adults on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, located at 7210 Milford Drive. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The proposed site is located on the north side of Milford Drive, two lots west of Eva Street. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed site is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by R-2 zoning. The existing house is located well within a residential neighborhood, surrounded by single family residences and vacant lots, with no other commercial uses in the vicinity. Staff does not believe this proposed commercial encroachment would be compatible with the neighborhood. The Chicot and Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Associations, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners within 200 feet, and all residents within 300 feet that could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposal includes widening the existing driveway from Milford Drive, and adding on site parking for three vehicles in front of the existing house. The Ordinance would require a minimum of three parking spaces for two employees and a capacity of 10 adults. January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: FILE NO.: Z-6942 A 6 foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required to help screen this site from the residential properties to the north, east and west. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: a. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master , Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. b. All driveways shall have concrete aprons per City Ordinance. c. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. d. Driveway to be minimum of 20 -feet wide with a side turnaround for the parking area. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: Contact the Water Works if additional water service is required. Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: Site is near bus routes #17 and #17A and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to convert an existing house into an adult day care center for up to 10 adults. It would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 2 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6942 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No exterior work is proposed for the existing building, so siting criteria is not an issue. Sufficient parking, access, and screening have been provided in the proposed site plan. The applicant has chosen to make an in -lieu payment of 15% of the cost of improvements made instead of constructing the street improvements. The cost to widen and improve the driveway apron may be credited towards that in - lieu payment. The proposed site is well within a residential neighborhood. It would be bordered by single family residences to the north and south, and vacant lots to the east, west and southeast, but the entire area is zoned single family residential. Staff is not aware of any other commercial uses in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff does not believe this first encroachment of a commercial use would be compatible with this residential neighborhood. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested commercial use for an adult day care center at this location. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (NOVEMBER 16, 2000) Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal, briefly reviewing the comments provided to the applicant. The primary areas discussed were screening, parking, street improvements and access. The applicant indicated he would ask for a waiver to the street improvement since the surrounding area has no curb and gutter or sidewalks. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 3 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FILE NO.: Z-6942 (DECEMBER 7, 2000) Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing the application. There were 4 registered objectors present. Staff stated they had received a letter from Southwest Little Rock United for Progress not supporting the proposed use. Staff noted that the proposed site is well within a residential neighborhood, bordered by single family residences to the north and south, and vacant residential lots to the east, west and southeast, and that the entire area is zoned single family residential. Staff stated they were not aware of any other commercial uses in the vicinity and did not believe this first encroachment of a commercial use would be compatible with this residential neighborhood. Therefore, Staff presented the item with a recommendation for denial of the requested commercial use for an adult day care at this location. Madam Chair Adcock stated that since there were only eight Commissioners present, it was the Commission's Policy to offer applicants the opportunity to defer their item since they must have six positive votes out of the eight Commissioners present to be approved. Sharlie Deloney stated that she wished to defer this item until January. The Commission placed the item on the consent deferral agenda and deferred it to the January 25, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 2001) Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney were present representing the application. There were 3 registered objectors and three persons in support present at the hearing. Staff presented the item noting that the area where the use would be located was zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and that the proposed use would be commercial since the applicant would not be living in the house. Staff continued that they did not believe this encroachment of a commercial use would be compatible with this residential neighborhood. Therefore, Staff's recommendation was for denial of the requested commercial use for an adult day care at this location. Sharlie and Ronnie Deloney presented their arguments for approval of the requested use. They showed a picture of what the 4 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont . ) FILE NO.: z-5942 home would look like after their renovations were completed and emphasized they had brought the house into compliance with all City building codes, zoning, permitting, and state licensing requirements. They stated they intended to maintain the residential appearance of the house, and so any changes required for this use would be installed in such a way as they could be removed if the house went back to residential use. Ms. Deloney added that the use would be very quiet with little traffic. She also commented that she had polled the surrounding neighbors, none of whom expressed any objections to the proposal, and several she said, stated they thought it would be a good idea. She presented to the Commission several individual letters and a petition from supporters. She explained in detail the purpose and benefits of an adult day care, and mentioned she had already received several calls about using the service. They also suggested their use of this previously vacant house would be good for the neighborhood and help property values. Mr. Deloney added that he felt the use would improve property values because the renovation would improve the outside appearance, and eliminate the past situation of having a house that had been used for illegal activity, was run down, and vacant. Troy Laha, Vice President of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and Vice President of the Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition. He stated that the neighborhood action plan did not allow conditional use permits for commercial operations like this in this area, and that the proposed use would not qualify as a home based business. He added that in general the neighborhood associations are opposed to any operation that would cause an increase in traffic. Also he was concerned about the fact that this property floods and whether it met building code requirements for the intended use. He stated that he didn't feel the house had the facilities to house 10 people with one bathroom. He also mentioned that there was a bill of assurance for this property which stated that it could be used for residential use only. He added that the neighborhood association was not opposed to the concept, only the proposed location, and that it should be located where the zoning allowed it. Janet Berry, President of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, stated that their membership voted to oppose the application primarily because of the increase in traffic that would result on this narrow street bounded by open ditches. She stated that she felt it would be difficult for two full size vehicles to pass when traveling on Milford Drive. They 5 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6942 understood that the Links van/minibus would be a primary way the occupants of the day care would arrive, and that another vehicle would not be able to pass that minibus in her opinion. Clifton Galyean, Vice President of the Chico Neighborhood Association, and property owner directly north of the proposed site, spoke in opposition. His main concern was that this use should not be in the residential neighborhood zoned for single family residences, it should be in an area zoned for day care. He asked what the point was of establishing zoning and developing neighborhood plans if you always made exceptions. Sharlie Deloney responded to the opposition comments. She stated that the clients would not live at this location, only stay there during the day. It would be a "day care" operation between 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. She added that the federal requirements allowed clients to stay only 8 hours per day. She disagreed with the claims that the street was too narrow for two vehicles to pass. She stated that she drives the area a lot and that she and some of the other close -by neighbors believe there is adequate room on the street to pass. She added that school busses travel the road daily and one man drives his semi -tractor down the street often on the way home. She also clarified that there would be a maximum of 10 people staying there during the day, not living there, and that they would come and go at different times of the day in a variety of vehicles including regular cars, but not primarily the Links bus. She also added that there are two bathrooms in the house and that neither the property survey nor the realtor who sold them the property identified the property as being in a flood plain or flood hazard area. Mr. Deloney stated the home would be for only 10 people even though DHS qualified the house for 11.4 people, based on their criteria. Ana Hernandez, 28 year resident on Milford Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal. She stated that before the Deloneys bought this property it had been a drug house because she saw needles in the driveway and on the street. She stated that the Deloneys had really cleaned up the house and property. She added that she believed traffic would not be an issue on Milford Drive, that it was wide enough because she passes school busses on Milford Drive and she drives a full size van. She stated she felt the day care would be a great asset to the neighborhood and elderly people. C1 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6942 Rev. Kevin Allen, Pastor of Perfecting Christian Church on Mabelvale Cut -Off, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that he felt the proposed adult day care would be an asset to the community and that his church was 100% behind the proposal. He planned to use the day care for his grandmother. He added that he believed it would have a small impact on traffic. He also felt that this location would be a better location for the elderly than a busy commercial area because it is quiet and close to people who need the service. Glorice Jones, 30 year resident on Milford Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal. She stated she had no problem with the adult day care opening at the proposed location and she said she felt it was drastically needed. She said she knew of several people who wanted to provide care at home for their elderly parents, but had difficulty doing so because they had to work and this would help them with their care. She added that she saw no problem with the traffic or size of the streets. She said she had passed comfortably and easily large construction vehicles on Milford without any problem. She said she saw no problem with the size of the house. She added that this was not a normal commercial type operation, it would stay like a home with a residential atmosphere that would be much more comfortable for the elderly. Commissioner Lowry asked Staff what the difference was between a child and an adult day care. Staff responded that the ordinance requirements were the same. He then asked if Staff's recommendation would be the same had this been a child day care. Staff responded it would have been the same. Mr. Lawson, Planning Director, added that one of the major concerns of Staff was that because the applicants wouldn't be living in the house, which would make it a day care family home, it would be strictly a commercial business in a residential neighborhood without any "residential" nature to it. He added that if the Deloneys were living there Staff probably would not be opposed to the proposal. Commissioner Muse asked Public Works about the condition of the street and if it was wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Mr. Turner, Public Works Director, responded that Milford was a typical 18-20 foot wide chip and seal street with open ditches on either side, and that it was wide enough for most vehicles to pass each other. He added that this area is flat and does drain slowly, but it is not in a flood hazard area. 7 January 25, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6942 Commissioner Allen stated that he thought a day care center had recently been approved in a residential neighborhood in West Little Rock on Taylor Loop Road without a requirement for the applicants to live in the facility, and wondered why this one was any different. Other Commissioners noted that what he had referred to was actually a school. Staff did respond however, that each application is looked at closely on its own merits considering parking availability, what surrounds the proposed site, other uses in the area, and the particular situation and factors of each application. Mr. Lawson acknowledged that the recommendation opposing this application was a close call. Commissioner Rector stated that it seemed that the determinate factor in Staff's recommendation was whether the applicant was living at the site. Commissioner Berry asked if this applicant sells this property would the conditional use permit, should it be approved, become void and the property revert back to residential use. Staff responded that the conditional use permit normally goes with the property and is permanent unless the Commission places a condition on the approval that it be only for this owner. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations, less and except the Staff recommendation for denial, but including the requirement that the applicant make a 15% in -lieu payment for street improvements, and including the stipulation that should the use as an adult day care center ever cease, the conditional use permit would become void and the property would revert back to residential use. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 8