PC 04-03-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN H1LLS PLANNING CO.Y1MISSION - APRIL 3,2002 3 . CASE #02-06 - PILGRIM HOUSE UNITARIAN CHURCH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m, Staff rcviewed their report of March 28, 2002 and recommended approval lor the reasons contained thercin. Commissioner 7immern1an asked who the applicant was. He asked if it was Ms. Carlson, who was renting space from the church, or was the Church rUlming the daycare. Mr. Parrish replied Special Use Pernlits were provided to the property and it was incumbent upon thc property owner to have a Special Use Pennit for that special use. He stated Ms. Carlson would be leasing spacc from the Church. Commissioner Zimmerman pointed out tbis was an R-1 residcntial neighborhood, in which a church was allowed to run a day care; and in a R-1 residential districttherc was a limit of 10 children, He stated thc Code did not spccify if a church was allowed to run a daycare. Mr. Parrish replied a Special Use Pel1l1it ran with the property, alld if Ms. Carlson ceased to run the daycare facility that Special Use Permit would still be in place and the Church would still bc able to run a daycare at the Church. Commissioner Zimmel1l1an bclieved that renting out the property was not in compliance with thc regulations. Mr. PatTish stated the proper applicant was Pilgrim House. He . indicated thc letter from Ms. Carlson outlined the operation, but Pilgrim House was thc applicant. Chair Sand agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman that a tenant should not be the applicant, Mr. Panisb showcd the Commission the application and stated Pilgrim House had signed the application, Chair Sand requested in the future applications attached to the materials given to the Commission, Commissioner Ricke asked if thc applicable County and State liccnsing regulations for daycarc facilities would pemlit up to twenty childrcn, would staff still recommend IS children. Mr. Parrish replied there was no clearly delincd numbers in the Ordinance and he took the higher of the two numbers that were refened to in the application. He stated it was up to the Planning Commission to detennine what number of children are appropriate in this situation. Commissioner Ricke asked if thcrc was something staff based its recommendations that 15 children was the maximum amonnt of children for the daycare facility as opposcd to 20 childrcn. Mr. Panish replied there was not. Commissioner Lemberg asked if there were any recommendations from staff regarding . fencing around the proposed daycare facility, Mr. Parrish replied the Ordinance did not require a daycare to be enclosed by a fence, but he noted this in the memorandnm for the Commissioners' consideration, and he believed the County and State licensing authorities may havc some say regarding fencing.