Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7477 Staff AnalysisDecember 4, 2003 ITEM NO.: J NAME: I nC ATION- FILE NO.: Z-7477 Nunn Day Care Center — Conditional Use Permit 19 Warren Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: US Bank/Berthena Nunn PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for use of this R-2 zoned single family house as a day care center. The site was formerly used as a day care center. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Warren Drive, north of Mabelvale Cut -Off. 2, COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed day care is located in an area that is predominantly single family in nature. Most of the surrounding properties are larger tracts occupied by single family homes. There are other uses in the general vicinity including two multifamily developments, a nonconforming skating rink and an elementary school. While this site does have some history of use as a nonconforming day care, it has been vacant for over two years. Staff believes the day care may no longer be compatible with the neighborhood, especially since it appears the required 13 parking spaces cannot be provided on the site. The level of activity generated by a day care of this size will have an impact on adjacent properties. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress, Santa Monica, Allendale and Chicot Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed day care is to have an enrollment of 40 children with 7 employees and 2 vans. This requires a total of 13 on site parking spaces. The property currently has a single -wide driveway deep enough to stack 2 vehicles. The applicant has submitted a plan showing a circular driveway/drop-off and 9 parking spaces. The proposed plan would require paving virtually the entire front yard. The proposed parking stall depth and maneuvering area does not comply with code. It would be possible, though not desirable, to extend a driveway to the rear yard and to create a December 4, 2003 ITEM NO.: ,! Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7477 paved parking area in the rear yard area that would accommodate the needed parking spaces. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The proposed plan does not provide required perimeter and building landscape areas. Nine foot wide landscape strips are required along the north and south perimeters of the parking lot and 12.42 wide rear and street buffer strips are required. Screening is required on the north, south and east perimeters where adjacent to residential property. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: The proposed radius of the circular driveway is inadequate to serve as a drop-off. Proposed curb cuts do not comply with ordinance requirements. 6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: No objection to conversion of existing residence into a day care center. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The nearest CATA bus route is located on Chicot Road, several blocks to the west. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT; (OCTOBER 9, 2003) Larry Wallace and Berthena Nunn were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted much more information was needed on the proposed use. Staff asked the applicant to provide information regarding signage, number of employees and children, days and hours of operation, site lighting, fencing and trash pick-up. Staff noted the site had only a single -wide 2 December 4, 2003 M NO.: J (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7477 driveway and additional on-site parking would be required based on the number of children and employees. Staff asked the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing that parking. It was noted that Public Works and Landscape Comments would be revised to reflect a review of the new parking area. Larry Wallace responded that all comments would be responded to by October 15, 2003. Mr. Wallace noted the site had been used as a day care center for 25 years prior to its closing. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission after advising the applicant to meet with neighborhood residents. STAFF ANALYSIS: The R-2 zoned property located at #19 Warren Drive is occupied by a one-story, 1,800* square foot, frame, residential structure. The site has a single -wide driveway deep enough to park two vehicles. A day care center operated on the site for approximately 25 years until May or June of 2001 when the previous owner defaulted on a bank loan and closed the business. The building has been vacant since that date. The applicant, Berthena Nunn, proposes to reopen the day care. The day care is proposed to operate Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. — 8:00 p.m. Enrollment is proposed as 40 children with 7 employees. The day care will have 2 vans. Signage is proposed to consist of a 12 square foot, 6 foot tall ground sign and a single wall sign. Lighting is to consist of street lighting, a security light at the southwest corner of the front parking area and lighting over the exit doors and rear corners of the building. The applicant has proposed to place a dumpster at the front (southwest) corner of the site. Staff is not comfortable supporting the application. Although a day care operated on the site for a number of years, the property is located within a single family residential neighborhood. The activity generated by a day care center of this size could have a negative impact on adjacent residential properties. Additionally, the day care is required to have 13 on-site parking spaces. The property currently has only enough parking for 2 vehicles stacked in the driveway. The site plan submitted by the applicant does not provide adequate parking. The depth and maneuvering area required for several of the spaces is inadequate; the proposed circular driveway has an inadequate radius to be usable; and no landscaping and screening is provided on the perimeters of the vehicular use areas. It is possible that a driveway could be extended into the rear yard and a proper parking lot constructed in that area of the property. Staff questions whether that is feasible since it would impact the availability of playground area. The proposed dumpster location, adjacent to the street is unacceptable. The dumpster must be oriented 3 December 4, 2003 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7477 away from the street and moved more toward the rear of the property. Screening of the vehicular use area and playgrounds from the adjacent residential properties is required. There is no valid bill of assurance covering this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. One letter of opposition and two letters by support had been received. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the December 4, 2003 meeting to allow for submission of a revised site plan. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to waive the Commission's bylaws to accept the late request for deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the December 4, 2003 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant met with staff and subsequently submitted a revised site plan which addressed the issues raised at the October 9, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan now proposes the removal of the existing driveway and construction of a new, 20 foot wide driveway along the south side of the property, providing access to two parking spaces in the front and ten spaces in the rear yard. The proposed driveway and parking comply with ordinance standards for depth, width, maneuvering area and paving. The dumpster has been removed as it likely will not be required for a day care of this size. Proposed landscaping, buffers and screening have been shown to comply with Ordinance requirements. Screening is shown as "6 screening" and may be either a wood fence with its finished side facing outward or evergreen vegetation. The proposed parking does fall one space short of the requirement. Otherwise, the applicant has done a good job of addressing all site -plan issues. The remaining issue is the question of whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for this site. 4 December 4, 2003 ITEM NO.: J (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7477 On November 6,2003, the revised site plan was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. The Committee questioned whether the proposed playground area would be adequate for the number of children. The applicant responded that not all of the children would be outside at the same time and the playground would be adequate. The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Three letters of opposition and four letters of support had previously been presented to the commissioners. Staff presented the item and noted that the applicant had addressed all site plan related issues. Staff voiced concerns about the compatibility of the day care with the neighborhood and stated they were not able to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. The applicant, Berthena Nunn, addressed the Commission and stated there were a limited number of facilities in the area to provide day care services to neighborhood residents. Ms. Nunn stated there were waiting lists for persons seeking day care service in the area. She stated there was an increased need for day care service due to increased government incentives for persons to return to the workforce. Troy Laha, of SWLR United for Progress, spoke in opposition and stated there were, in fact, vacancies at area day care centers. He stated the neighborhood's action plan recommended residential use for this area. He stated this was a commercial business that would be better located on a major street such as Chicot Road or Mabelvale Cut -Off. Commissioner Meyer noted the property had been vacant for 2'h years. He asked Mr. Laha if he would rather have the day care or a vacant house. Mr. Laha responded that he would prefer to have an owner occupied residence. Janet Berry, of SWLR United for Progress, spoke in opposition and stated this was a commercial business that was not appropriate for this residential area. Ms. Berry stated there were several day care centers in the area; including three on Chicot Road and one on Mabelvale Cut -Off. She voiced concerns about the traffic the proposed use would generate. In response to a question from Commissioner Floyd, Director of Planning Jim Lawson stated the education component of the day care described by Ms. Nunn was permitted under the conditional use permit for the day care center. 5 December 4, 2003 ITEM NO.: J (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7477 Acting Chairman Rahman asked Ms. Nunn if she had looked at other potential sites for the day care. Ms. Nunn responded that she had looked at this site because it was affordable due to the bank foreclosure. She also noted the site's proximity to a school and several multifamily developments. Referring to the staff report, Commissioner Williams asked why the day care was no longer compatible with the area; what had changed? Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that perhaps a more appropriate question would be, what had not changed. He stated the day care was a nonconforming use, existing at the time the area was annexed. Mr. Carney stated the neighborhood was residential at that time and continues to be residential at the present. He stated there had been no other non-residential development in the neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the application subject to compliance with staff comments and conditions in Sections 1-6 of the staff report. The vote was 3 ayes, 8 noes and 0 absent. The application was denied. 0