Although the El Dorado City Commission approved a special use permit for a daycare at 625 W. 14th, they did not give the go-ahead to another one located at 311 S. Orchard Monday night.

The daycare proposal for South Orchard was different because it did not meet city requirements for the special use permit. According to Article 6 of the zoning codes, there cannot be a daycare in a non-residential facility in a residential neighborhood.

“Staff recommended the denial of this application because the applicant does not reside at this residence,” said Matt Rehder, planning and zoning coordinator. “The Planning Commission – after a public hearing – voted to deny 7-0.”

Commissioner Linda Clark questioned that there are already two such daycares in existence.

“So just grandfather them in and let them continue?” she asked.

“That’s what the commission discussed last week, letting them exist,” said Herb Llewellyn, city manager.

Although some new information has come up since that meeting.

Llewellyn said they found out when a person first applies at the county, the first thing they are told is they need to call the city and check on zoning. The county also provides the applicant with the number to call.

“From our perspective, that kind of changes the assumption that they had no knowledge and were inadvertent mistakes,” he said. “After talking with the county, it seems they chose not to go down that list and made no follow-up.”

He encouraged the commission to look at the big policy.

“The reason you don’t allow these is you don’t allow any business in a residential neighborhood unless it’s primary use is living,” Llewellyn said. “If we feel this is a good use of residential property in our community, why do we have a rule prohibiting it? The concern is businesses in residences aren’t a good fit and I’m sure that is why the rule was in place.

“You either need to decide it is a good rule, or you may need to rethink the policy. On this instance, you can’t grant a special use permit because you can’t ask for one.”

He said the applicant, Tammy Brown, was told that by city staff but wanted to apply anyway.

Clark asked what they would have do to to allow them to have a daycare.

“You can do that, but it’s not really a special use permit,” Llewellyn explained. “If you wanted to do something tonight you would tell staff that you want to ignore the regulation and that’s a really bad way to do business. If you want to revisit the issue, tell the Planning Commission to revisit the issue and tell staff not to engage in any enforcement action. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a rule on the books and not follow it.”

He suggested the Planning Commission take another look at the requirements for daycares or any other businesses the community thinks is fine to conduct in residential neighborhoods without someone living there.

“It is a big change in what is done in the country,” he said.

While many years ago mixed use was common, that is not the case now, although some are starting to go back to more mixed use in downtowns again.

If this was done, the two already in business would be left in operation until the Planning Commission looked at the regulations again.

Mayor Tom McKibban said he would like to back off of code enforcement and revisit the policy.

Commissioner David Chapin only had one concern.

“I think my biggest thing is I think the neighborhood should be contacted and if there is a big ‘I don’t want it in my neighborhood’ on non-residential daycare, that would change my idea,” he said. “If they’re not opposed to it, I’m not opposed to it.”

Llewellyn also said they could put requirements on the special use permit to protect future neighbors.

“If it became  problem, then you revisit the special use permit,” he said. “Just because you say you can do it, doesn’t mean you can keep doing it if it becomes a problem.”

Commissioner Steve Pershall agreed the Planning Commission should review the ordinance and Chapin agreed.

Commissioner Steve Reynolds suggested tabling the issue until their next meeting.

Llewellyn did point out that it could take several months to get a recommendation back from the Planning Commission.

The commission also heard from Norm Manley, who was representing the applicant.
“On this particular issue, Herb and I are on the same page,” he said. “How we get there, we’re in a little disagreement. You can go along with the Planning Commission or remand to override it. I agree with you all.”

He said even owner-occupied daycare centers are probably in violation of the regulations because there is only a certain amount of floor space that can be used for the home business and he said they were probably all over that amount.

“I would like to see this remanded back to the Planning Commission,” Manley said. “I would hate to see you deny the conditional use permit at this point when you have it in your power to remand it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the regulations.”

He also said he would like to sit down with the Planning Commission and help them draft regulations that make sense.

Reynolds made a motion to table the item until the Planning Commission came back with a recommendation. Chapin seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.