Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 29, 2002 <br /> <br />L./ <br /> <br /> <br />'.'fl/l-: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />children she would be happy, but there was a possibility that there may be 10 part-time children who <br />only came a couple of days a week. She stated at any given time, she did not expect to have over 15 <br />children. She stated having a limit of 20 children, would also give her the opportunity to grow at <br />some time in the futurc. She noted the State/County licensing would regulate how many children <br />she could legally have and it was a very complicated process. She indicated this was a very <br />structured program and the children would be supervised at all times. She stated they were willing <br />to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns regarding noise and privacy issues. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked if they had 20 children and they were half time, which would really be <br />10 students. He stated the number of children would drive what they approved. Mr. Parrish stated <br />the number of children at anyone particubr time could be a condition. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked staff to research what the State licensing guidelines for daycares were. <br />She agreed this should be sent back to the Planning Commission for their further review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski statcd she did not have a problem approving this tonight, but she <br />believcd the Planning Commission should look at this again. <br /> <br />City Attorney stated if the Council wantcd to extend this they needcd to put it in writing and needed <br />to obtain applicant's permission to extend. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Larson movcd a motion to refer this back to the Planning <br />Commission to consider the ncw information, and Council's discussion and this be put in <br />writing to thc applicant. <br /> <br />Mr. Lima stated if they could not be open by June 1,2001, the children in the current daycare facility <br />would necd to find a new place to go. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish stated the only item that may bc difficult to get at this time would be State information <br />requested, but this could go to the Planning Commission at thcir next mecting. He asked if the <br />applicant needed a land use approval in place prior to the State's licensing approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Lima stated the existing daycare facility in another church was closing May 30, 2002, and it was <br />the intent that these children would go to the Pilgrim House daycare. <br /> <br />Ms. Carlson stated she was unable to gct the State's approval until the City had decided to allow her <br />to havc this daycare. She also stated she did not want to invest in supplies, furniture, ete. if the City <br />did not allow her to tun this daycare facility. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish noted that the actual public hearing had already been hcld and it was not typical to <br />renotice the public hearing. He stated this would simply go back to the Planning Commission for <br />their further recommendation with the new information. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst suggested the motion be withdrawn and the Planning Commission review this at their <br />next meeting, and it come back to the Council at the May 13 meeting. <br />