Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reports'IV TheCommission has authority because driveway placement may affect "the health, welfare or safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants." Staff determined that going to both bodies to review the variance request would be inefficient, and since the PRC consists of three members of the Commission, and since the conditional use process allows for a public hearing, which the PRC review does not, then the logical place to take the variance request is to the Commission. Ms. Jimmerson said that staff did support the driveway variance request. If the northern most driveway were moved further north to fully comply with the driveway ordinance then an awkward street offset would occur. Also, the proposed driveways are in almost the exact locations of the existing curb cuts. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Ed McDowell, 1013 Walden Drive, was present to represent the church. He explained that there were 74 spaces required by the parking regulations, but the site plan shows that 77 spaces would be provided. Mr. Tommie Preston, 616 Pierce, representing the church, gave the Commission some historic information about the church and parking lot. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the request with the variance request. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 5-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and site plan, for the Ordonez Residence located at 1701 Langford. This request is to allow an in- house child care facility within the single family residence. (99-733) Staff Planner Anderson presented the staff report and explained that child care facilities may be permitted as conditional uses in any district upon approval from the Commission. The request was for permission to operate a child care facility in her home located at 1701 Langford Street. The applicant proposed to convert the existing 440 square foot garage into the child care area and provide use of a 25 square foot bathroom for child care use, for a total of 465 square feet to be used for both child care and residential purposes. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance defines a child care facility as "any facility or premises where seven or more children under sixteen years of age regularly attend for purposes of custody, care, or instruction; and which children are not members of the immediate nuclear family of any natural person actually operating the facility or premises." The applicant currently has four children in her immediate family. The applicant proposes three types of child care programs, which would operate different hours and have a variant number of children participating. The main child care program would be after school care from the hours of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. This program would have a maximum number of 12 children ranging in age from 5 to 13. The second program is a part time "Mother's Day Out" program which would operate from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. This program would have a maximum number of 8 children ranging in age from 18 months to 5 years. The third program is a summer program, which would serve school age children from the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The maximum number of children in this program would be 12, ranging in age from 5 years to 13 years. The applicant plans to hire one employee to help provide care for these programs. She pointed out that currently the property has two off street parking spaces for the residential use; the applicant proposes to use these same spaces to satisfy the needs of the child care use as well as the residential use. She said that a wood fence surrounds the proposed playground area (the backyard). It is unknown, however, P&Z Minutes January 6, 2000 Page 5 of 13 wim me care or me cmiaren, ana wouia raring me ieacnericmia ration aown. Commissioner Horlen expressed his concerns with safety of the children crossing the street from the school to the home. Chairman Rife stated that he was against the motion from a planning perspective. P&Z Minutes January 6, 2000 Page 6 of 13 pending submission of these for review by the full Commission. Chairman Rife asked the distance from this building to the parking garage. Ms. Jimmerson said that she believed it to be a lot or two north of this project. Commissioner Kaiser asked for the procedures that staff uses to assure compliance with landscaping, sidewalk, and parking. Ms. Jimmerson said that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until all requirements are met. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Chad Grauke, The Arkitex Studio, was present to represent the applicant. He stressed that the proposed use is consistent with existing establishments in the area. All of the required parking would be acquired by the parking garage once completed, in the interim parking will be along Patricia Street. He explained that the Northgate guidelines have "0" lot line development, which does not require on- site parking. The anticipated completion date of the proposed facility would be less than one year prior to the completion of the parking garage. He explained that there would be restaurant activities during the day, and nightclub activities during the evening hours. P&Z Minutes January 6, 2000 Page 7 of 13 STAFF REPORT Item: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, site plan and use, for the Ordonez Residence located at 1701 Langford. This request is to allow an in-house child care facility within the single-family residence. (99-201) Applicant: DeAnna Ordonez Item Summary: Child care facilities may be permitted as conditional uses in any district upon approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant is requesting permission to operate a child care facility in her home located at 1701 Langford Street. The applicant proposes to convert the existing 440 square foot garage into the child care area and provide use of a 25 sq.ft bathroom for child care use, for a total of 465 square feet to be used for both child care and residential purposes. Item Background: The Zoning Ordinance defines a child care facility as "any facility or premises where seven (7) or more children under sixteen (16) years of age regularly attend for purposes of custody, care, or instruction; and which children are not members of the immediate nuclear family of any natural person actually operating the facility or premises." Ms. Ordonez currently has four children in her immediate family. The applicant proposes three types of child care programs, which would operate different hours and have a variant number of children participating. The main child care program would be after school care from the hours of 3pm-6pm. This program would have a maximum number of 12 children ranging in age from 5 to 13. The second program is a part time "Mother's Day Out" program which would operate from 9am-2:30pm. This program would have a maximum number of 8 children ranging in age from 18 months to 5 years. The third program is a summer program which would serve school age children from the hours of 7:30am to 6pm. The maximum number of children in this program would be 12, ranging in age from 5 years to 13 years. The applicant plans to hire one employee to help provide care for these programs. Staff Recommendations: Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." Currently, the subject property has two off-street parking spaces for the residential use; the applicant proposes to use these same two parking spaces to satisfy the needs of the child care use as well as the residential use. 1. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." 2. "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." ❖ A wood fence surrounds the proposed playground area, the backyard. It is unknown, however, how the children will enter the playground area (around the front yard, or through the house). ❖ In addition, the applicant states drop off and pick up of children in each of the programs would be intermittent and thus, traffic impacts will be minimal. "The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." In this particular case, the Commission may also limit the number of children and the hours of operation. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit. The options regarding the Conditional Use Permit are approval as submitted, approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations, denial with specified reasons for denial, or table. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Site Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Adequate for proposed use. Sewer: Adequate for proposed use. Streets: The subject property has approximately 76 feet of frontage on Langford Street and is provided access through a private driveway. Off-site Easements: None Drainage: Drainage is adequate for proposed use. Flood Plain: Subject property is not located within a flood plain. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 12-20-99 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 01-06-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 18 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. • --r7k f pvs~a l4sc Fop- 5r,a~,)-Cirr -Poc,eTy P5 AAA I N L.Y S+P~it71'7 ~kt~ u/r r~ / Appx~oxt r 45&r -r- l -7-A45-~ Fore- a97-7/ --#e IXAin/ GG~iLD P~ RAk-4 VI/OULZ:> BE j,--oz- AFMz 4~'N 1~ l~✓~!'t-4C~D A'G~~ TU dip- LAP M057Z-Y -Fk~-A Otl -Lo A4 -fo 4 p,vt . 1hvr~ R-v nit -p! c - "p v✓o uc~lj &Vr / WnW T ScNacx.- CvAIc7r.S~D ~lG.. -rhIC / ti1PA74--r5 W/V4t&-Z> OE Vl ^.IItit *t- . -f716 )OA4 (1 14aljn Nu /n53C-,C- of C44114-n;Oei1 IA,) --7W15 -p r-067 -7-4-n'l h/O" G,A 73F !Z; ~~nJl~/~IG~ ~ At 7-1/i5 , 4~C-5 5 A-~,j o /3. Atj6rjler-. c « c~ pzc>ye-A-pi4 -rb are-, e,49 A) VV-~ l L~ ~~z--N7x ©A/ r,5A-5 i,C3 14L I' rti/ 0 : 3 o -77,A,4 A-5 m a-r -to s~ -r~~R-er w P--9 OZ- YD AJJ v r • 'M -4 14r'e7r- 6Cdac- SID ;EWaZC- `.zf/oot-, CO Al 4 69n d AA -r{* 4,61j /N (k/c-ofZCA1 "a,&C> 04" 6 r9o 94 16 ix to &.f-" -to 1-5 yeAlVs. -~r 44A tl l 44M 1.✓ou~D g. FvTL 5u~•- ~C~ C,~/-f t~ pZ~ii~1. 5 p.~C~izA'~1 W vu tea { Z,49-r3 OP: veTT 1'-- -7 E~ 06~ ME . 'T~ 5 -~"~A-~Fi ~ !~P A~'r ~ tad!-r.LO 1~~ ivl! N! NLIbC '~f~ ~ U/DI~L,C.~ t3 LE 444y-, P M,l.,ivt- O-r 12 64-k DZZ~iv I IV -7'7-)15 pQO~ j2 ,ArM ?0*7U 4DI U~7 J A) ABC lc9OD rVk 6 yOAZ-,5~ -7 a 13 y - . For- AAJY or 0 how the children will enter the playground area (either through the house, or around the front yard). The applicant has informed staff that drop off and pick up of children in each of the programs would be intermittent and thus, traffic impacts would be minimal. Ms. Anderson said that she had received 4 phone calls in favor of the request and one phone call with concern for the number of children proposed. She clarified that the state allows 14 children to be cared for in a space of 465 square feet, although it is limited to 12 children for in-home child care. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. William Guidry, 1712 Laura Lane, explained that he was opposed to the request. He said that there were unsafe conditions on the property, such as a leaning wooden fence, exposed nails in the fence, and a steep slope in the backyard, which causes problems with drainage. He said that area is known to flood during heavy rains. The leaning fence provides no privacy. Ms. Debby Mason, 1714 Laura Lane, was also opposed to the request. She said that her backyard abuts the subject property and could see a potential problem with noise. She also had the same concerns with the request as Mr. Guidry. She was also concerned with decreased property values. Ms. Deanna Ordonez, 1701 Langford (the applicant), explained that she was aware of repairs that would need to be made prior to the opening of the childcare. She said that the state would inspect the area before allowing her to be approved. She pointed out that the fence was being repaired now. She did not anticipate a traffic problem because she would primarily keep children from South Knoll Elementary. Her plans were to hire one additional employee, but it would be unlikely that both would be present at the same time, with the exception of rare occasions. She told the Commission that her own children's ages range from 4 to 13. If the request was not approved she would be allowed to keep a total of 10 children (6 unrelated in addition to her own four), but she wanted the additional children to make an income and to be able to support her family and hire additional help. She stated that she was more than willing to work with the neighborhood regarding any concerns. Mr. T H Kwa, a friend of the applicant, told the Commission that Ms. Ordonez was a very caring mother. He said that there was no evidence that property values would not be effected by in-home daycares. He stressed that there are times when human needs should be considered. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kaiser moved to approve the request to open the floor to discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser felt this was a very difficult issue. Commissioner Mooney said that if the request was denied, the number of children would be decreased by only two children. The permit would allow the applicant to hire additional help, which would help with the care of the children, and would bring the teacher/child ration down. Commissioner Horlen expressed his concerns with safety of the children crossing the street from the school to the home. Chairman Rife stated that he was against the motion from a planning perspective. P&Z Minutes January 6, 2000 Page 6 of 13 Commissioner Floyd suggested that this request receive a time limit, which would allow Staff to monitor the screening and other issues, and it could be re-evaluated for compliance. Commissioner Kaiser amended his original motion to approve the request for a period of one year with appropriate screening and upkeep (including drainage). Chairman Rife called for the vote, and the motion to approve with the one year time limit passed 3 - 2; Chairman Rife and Commissioner Horlen voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use and site plan, for Northgate Center located at the corner of College Main and Church Avenue, to allow for a night club. (99-730) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and stated that the applicant wished to renovate an existing building located at 301 College Main. The building was previously a retail use and the intent is to convert it into a restaurant during the day and a nightclub during the evening. The nightclub use requires a conditional use permit from the Commission this includes the site plan as well. The current building contains 5600 square feet and there is no designated off-street parking. The applicant indicated he would like to use the roof for additional seating as well as build an interior mezzanine. There are no specific parking requirements in this district (NG-1) for this type of use, however, as a guide, the Zoning Ordinance would typically require 100 parking spaces for the existing building, 20 for the mezzanine and 100 for the roof. The Northgate Review Board met on December 10, 1999. Because of concerns about the parking, the NRB's motion was to exclude the use of the roof until such time as the Northgate parking garage is completed to allow additional parking. Completion of this is expected in two years. The site plan was reviewed by Staff and the NRB. All landscape and sidewalk details had not been submitted. The NRB recommended approval of the use, the aesthetics and the site plan with the condition that the roof not be used until the parking garage is available. Staff supports the NRB's recommendation. The Commission may wish to delegate either to the staff or the NRB the final review of the sidewalk and the landscape details or the Commission may table the site plan pending submission of these for review by the full Commission. Chairman Rife asked the distance from this building to the parking garage. Ms. Jimmerson said that she believed it to be a lot or two north of this project. Commissioner Kaiser asked for the procedures that staff uses to assure compliance with landscaping, sidewalk, and parking. Ms. Jimmerson said that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until all requirements are met. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Mr. Chad Grauke, The Arkitex Studio, was present to represent the applicant. He stressed that the proposed use is consistent with existing establishments in the area. All of the required parking would be acquired by the parking garage once completed, in the interim parking will be along Patricia Street. He explained that the Northgate guidelines have "0" lot line development, which does not require on- site parking. The anticipated completion date of the proposed facility would be less than one year prior to the completion of the parking garage. He explained that there would be restaurant activities during the day, and nightclub activities during the evening hours. P&Z Minutes January 6, 2000 Page 7 of 13