CCP 04-29-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ., . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EXCERPT CASE #02-06 - PILGRIM HOUSE UNITARIAN CHURC AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Staffreviewed their report of March 28, 2002 and recommended approval for the reasons contained therein. Commissioner Zimmerman asked who the applicant was. He asked if it was Ms. Carlson, who was renting space from the church, or was the Church running the daycare. Mr. Parrish replied Special Use Permits were provided to the property and it was incumbent upon the property owner to have a Special Use Permit for that special use. He stated Ms. Carlson would be leasing space from the Church. Commissioner Zimmerman pointed out this was an R -I residential neighborhood, in which a church was allowed to run; and in a R-I residential district there was a limit of 10 children. He stated the Code did not specify if a church was allowed to run a daycare. Mr. Parrish replied a Special Use Permit ran with the property, and if Ms. Carlson ceased to run the daycare facility that Special Use Permit would still be in place and the Church would still be able to run a daycare at the Church. Commissioner Zimmerman believed that renting out the property was not in compliance with the regulations. Mr. Parrish stated the proper applicant was Pilgrim House. He indicated the letter from Ms. Carlson outlined the operation, but Pilgrim House was the applicant. Chair Sand agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman that a tenant should not be the applicant. Mr. Parrish showed 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 the applicable County and State licensing regulations for daycare facilities would permit up to twenty children, would staff still recommend 15 children. Mr. Parrish replied there was no clearly defined numbers in the Ordinance and he took the higher of the two numbers that were referred to in the application. He stated it was up to the Planning Commission to determine what number of children are appropriate in this situation. Commissioner Ricke asked if there was something staff based its recommendations that 15 children was the maximum amount of children for the daycare facility as opposed to 20 children. Mr. Parrish 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 memorandum for the Commissioners' consideration, and he believed the County and State licensing authorities may have some say regarding fencing.