HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 86--800
Appellant: KathyM. Hudgens
RandallH. Hudgens
Request: AppealofP&Z<decision to deny a request fora
Conditional Use Permit for child care services in a
residence.
Location:
203 Francis Ave.
Physical >Features:
Developed Residential lot.
Area Zoning: R-l; withR-6tothenorth
Existing Land Use:
Subject lot
residential.
and surrounding area are single
family
Land Use Plan:
Low Density Residential.
Engineering
Water: Adequate
Sewer: Adeq.uate
Streets: Adequate Capacity; Access to Francis.
F.lood..P.lain: N/A
Notification:
Legal Notice Publicalion(s}: 7-30-86
AdvertisedCounc ilHear ing Dates: 8-14-86
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200' : 14
Response Received: None to date
Staff .Comments..:
Conditional use permits are granted by the Commission,
subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when the
Commission finds:
A.
That the proposed use meets all the minimum
established in the ZoningOrdina>nce for this
use;
standards
type of
B. That the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose ~lnd
intent of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical
development of the district as embodied in the
compreheIlsive plan for the development of the City;
1
c. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
h.ealth, welfare, and safety of the surrounding
neighborhood>o>rits occupants, nor be substantially or
permaneIltly injuriou.sto neighboring property.
(Seesec.lO-C.2,Ordinance 1638)
The City's zoning ordinance requires the issuance of- a
'Conditional Use Permit for child care services when seven or
more children are present at any one time. It is the
staff's understanding that this request includes a maxi:mum
of12childrenwith one full time employee and one part time
employee in addition to the resident (s} of the home. Mlost
requests for in-home child care permits have included a
maximum of 12 children with no employees.
P&Z ACTION: On 7-17-86 the P&Z voted unanimously (6-0) to den:v
a request for a conditional use permit for a day care facility at
203 Francis.
P&Z MINUTES:
AGENDA ITEM NO.9: 86-'702: A Public Hearing on the question elf
grantinga>conditionaluseper.it .forchild care> services at 203
Francis Ave. Application is in the na.eof Kathy Hudgens.
Mr. Callawayexplai.nedthis request is for a conditional use permit which will allow
the applicant to have child care services in an existing residence for 12 children
with one full time and one part time employee in addition to the residents of the
home. He reported thatt;he subject lot and the surrounding area are developed as
single family residences and the land use plan designates the area as low density
residential. He went on to explain that conditional use permits are granted by the
Commission subject to appropriate conditions > and safeguards when the Commission finds
(a) that the proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the zoning
ordinance for this type of use; (b) that the proposed use is in harmony-with the
purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical develo:pment of
the district as embodied> in the comprehensive plan for the development of the City;
and,. (c) that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare and
safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants,. nor be substantially or
permanently injurious to neighboring property. He then informed the Commis:;ion that
the Public Services Department has expressed concern about generation of excessive
garbage unlike typical residences. He also referred toa letter which had l)een
handed out to the Commissioners from area residents opposing this request.
The public hearing was opened. Kathy Hudgens,the applicant, came forward to answer
any questions and explained that she and her husband now rent the property, but the
landlord has submitted a statement to the City which indicates that he is agreeable
to her operating this type of child care faci Ii ty in his house. She went on to gi ve
the approximate dimensions of the house and the yard, further explaining that after
she receives this use permit from. the Commission, she then will have all stclte
inspections, etc.. before. she will be able to open her .business.
Mr. MacGilvray.referred to the letter from area residents in opposition to her
request and askedher.ifshe.was aware they had complaints about her day care
operation as it now exists. She replied that she was not aware of any problems,
adding that the rules and regulations of her operation are posted, that she started
2
caring for no mofethan6 children on June 9th, that she knows ofa ball going over
the fence only on2occasions,butone neighbor, a Mrs. Pearl has given he~r
permission to enter the yard to retrievetheball,shouldithappen in the future.
Mr. Kaiser statedthattheopponentsof.thisrequest represent occupants and owners
of 1017 and 1019 Foster street and Mr'. Hudgens spoke from the audience to inform the
Connnission that.there. isa utility easement across their fence before you would get
to those back yards, and the balls which have crossed that fence have never" gone past
that utility easement. Mrs.. Hudgens added that she only allows the: children outside
twice. a day, once about 11 a.m. .. and again about 4 or .4:30. p.m., so. ;they ape not out
allday,andpeally should not bother people at those homes who are trying to sleep
as her yard .is...a .long....way ...from those houses. Mr.. Kaiser then .readthe. nam1e from the
letter of opposition, "Dr.T.<o. .W;ilton, CityH~altll Officer", anda~kedstaff if Dr.
Walton had expressed concern as the City Health Officer or asacitfz~n. . City
Attorney Cathy Locke spoke from the audience to inform theCommission,th~t as she
understands it, Dr. Walton' is speaking as a citizen only in this iristance.
Larry Bowles, a neighbor in favor of this request came forward to state th~:lt he owns
2 homes in thisarel:l, and it is an excellent lQcation for child care for children,
adding that of course there is some noise and a few balls over the:fence, but there is
nothing. going on which would be disruptive to either him....as a. nextqoor neighbor or
other neighbors. He stated > that a child care center as is being requested would not
adversely affect any of his properties in this area.
Noone else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler stated he llas some
concerns regarding this request because this area is mixed, that is, there are some
rental houses and some homes are owner occupied, and although none of the opposing
people are in the audience, there seems to be some concern in the area.
Mr. Brochu stated that he believes as many as 12 children require some type of
ttfacilitytt other than a home, albeit a large home. Mr. Kaiser stated that this home
has a history of this type of use (previously kept 6 children for a period of time
even prior to June 9th), and now the Commission must ask if the addition of 6
children and 2 employees will have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. Mr.
Dresser stated that one reason the change was made in the zoning ordinance regarding
the number of childn:m tobe allowed in the home before a use pennit is required was
because the City felt a home could handle 6 children without adversely affecting an
area, but he does .notbelievel2 children would be an appropriate number of children
for this residential area. He added that he believes this proposal constitutes a
business and if approved in this home, he does not know how future requests could be
turned down.
Mr. MacGilvray suggested that . listing adverse factors involved may be beneficial;
then listed theamOlJ.nt of tr-afficgeneratedand the noise 6 additional children might
make as being factors which might have negative impact on this mixed rental and owner
occupied neighborhood. Mr. Wendler agreed, adding that perhaps if this hom1ewere
closer to a. connnercial area, that is, on the edge of a residential area,. perhaps it
might be more appropriate.
Mr. Brochu then made amotion to deny this request for a conditional use pennit for a
child care facility for l2>children and one full time and one part time employee in
the home at 203 FrancIs Avenue. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion.
3
Mr. Kaiser reiterated some of the reasons as being substantial noise, traffic which
would be generated, and the .fact thehomeisl.ocated in the middle rather than on the
edge of a residential area, the combination ofwhichwouldhavea. negative impact on
the neighborhood. Mrs. <Sawtelle agreed, adding that even the 6 childrenli:ept at this
location in the past caused additIonal traffic which sometimes clogged the street.
Votes were cast on the motion. todeny,andthe.motioncarried.unanimously (6-0).
4