Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout004 03 86LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 1986 Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and ~Development Commission held in the city municipal building, April 3, 1986. Present: Chairman Pete Anderson, Robert Allen, Evan Byington, Bob Anderson, Myrna Cain, Ted Corrington, Sue Parrish, Dee Stalder, Attorney B. Lynn Winmill, Public Works Director Steve Smart and Myrna Crapo, Acting Secretary. Mayor John O. Cotant, Jr. was excused. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Anderson. Chairman Anderson asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes of March 6, 1986. There being none, Dee Stalder made a motion to accept minutes. Myrna Cain seconded the motion, with all members voting in favor. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 1. KATHERINE D. WATSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for a day care center at 4886 Pleasant View. Chairman Anderson stepped down because of a conflict of interest and turned the chair over to Robert Allen to conduct this portion of the meeting. Letters in favor of the conditional uSe were read by Chairman Allen and entered as exhibit one to three. There were received from 1. Patricia Hart - 1312 E. 3rd Street, Moscow, Idaho; 2.. Carol and Lenny Purrington, 4892 Pleasant VieW; 3. Robert & Judy Boyd, 4833 Pleasant View Drive. A petition to deny the conditional use was prepared, but it was not made part of the official records because it was not received in time. Attorney Winmill reviewed the requirements for accepting written testimony (18.28.020 of the Chubbuck Municipal code). Public Works Director Steve Smart informed the commission that day care centers with five or more children are required to have a conditional use permit. If a conditional use permit is issued the applicant must comply with the rest of the requirements of the city ordinances. Attorney Winmill read the ordinance (18.28.040 of the Chubbuck Municipal Code) concerning conditonal use permits and home occupations as they pertained to the public hearing in progress. Acting Chairman Allen opened public hearing, and asked the applicant Katherine Watson for her comments. The Health and Welfare considered her ~ a Day Care Home. Mrs. Watson stated that she would be willing to limit the number of children to 10 although at the present time she sometimes has thirteen children. She has been doing day care in ChubbuCk for 7% years. Jeanette Brewa of the Department of Health and Welfare explained the require- ments for a day care home and Catherine Watsons history with the depart- ment. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE CENTER - CONTINUED Sally Giesbrecht testified in favor of the day care center, stating that she lived outside of the area but had been using this day care center for 12 years. Mariette Milbrandt spoke in favor of the day care center. She stated that anyone driving past Kate Watson's could not tell it is a day care center. She has a fenced in back'yard and there are no signs. There is only minimual traffic. Linda Williams, Susan MouSseau and Alism Teshima all spoke in favor of the day care center. Lenny Purrington spoke in favor of a day care center stating that they needed a day care home in walking distance of the school bus. non Anderson spoke in favor of a day care center. Ed White was opposed to the-day care center because of the traffic and noise. He had collected 15 to 18 signatures of people living close to the houSe that were against the center. He lives two houses down fromKate Watson. David Hall was in favor. area. He has a small pre-school in their home in the Reed Larson, Carolyn Chaney, Bryce Jardine were in favor of the day care center. Edith White was opposed to the center. Jeff Moso, Scott Stanfield, Jim Branson, Linda Anderson, Kevin Bloxham, all expressed themselves as being in favor. Marla Barta was concerned about o~eni~g up the area for businesses. She . ~lnO stated that businesses of any were not allowed accozding to their restrictive covenants. Linda Gustafson was against the center, as she did not want to create a precedence. Acting Chairman Allen closed the hearing and opened it uP to the commission. The commission questioned Mrs. Watson on who helped her and the number of cars that her family has. Attorney winmill advised the commission that they could put restrictions on the day care center, and there is an right of appeals for anyone Who doesn't agree with the commisSions decision. After some discussion, Sue-Parrish made a motion to approve the Conditonal Use Permit for a Child Care Center at 4886 Pleasant View with the restrictions that 1. at no time are there more than fifteen children, 2. that there be off street parking available forl.three spaces, and 3. that.no sign be erected at any time, 4. there be a review date for one year from this day. Myrna Cain seconded the motion. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE CENTER - CONTINUED Roll call vote, Cain, yes; Anderson, yes; Corrington, yes; Byington, yes;' Parrish, yes; Stalder, yes; Allen, yes. Chairman Anderson resumed the chair and conduCted the balance of the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: PUblic Works Director Steve Smart showed the commission a film entitled Subdivisions Local Dilema. Bob Allen moved and Dee Stalder seconded the meeting be adjourned at lO:OS pm. ~ ~/./~~h~atrm~~an P~ce -Ander rapo~,~ CITY OF CHUBBUCK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public notices as required by law, on the 3rd day of April, 1986, upon applicant's application of Katherine D. Watson for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care center at 4886 Pleasant View. The Commission having heard public testimony, adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care center at 4886 Pleasant View. 2. The existing land uses in the area are single family residential structures. 3. The comprehensive plan designates this area as Limited Residential (R-1). 4. The existing zoning of the property is Limited Residential (R-1). 5. All legal requirements for notice of the public hearing have been satisfied. 6. Approximately 80% of the persons testifying at the public hearing expressed approval of the application. The remaining 20% were either non-commital or opposed to the application. 7. Relevant criteria and standards for the valuation of this application are set forth in §§18.04.050(E) & (H), 18.12.030(G), and 18.28.040 of the Chubbuck Municipal Code. 8. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows: A. The applicant has operated her child care center for a number of years without complaints from the adjoining land owners. It was only in recent years that complaints have been expressed by adjoining land owners. B. A representative of the Department of Health and Welfare testified at the public hearing that the applicant has complied with all State requirements for a FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER - Page 1 ja 9B-52 child care center. The Department of Health and Welfare representative indicated that the Department supports this application. C. The applicant's facility is one of two child care centers on the same block. However, these two are the only two child care centers within the subdivision. D. The majority of the children cared for in the applicant's facility reside within the same neighborhood and subdivision. E. All child care centers in the City are maintained within the operator's homes. F. The applicant testified that she regularly cares for six -eight children during regular working hours and cares for an additional six -seven children after school. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The applicant's child care center is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 2. The maintenance of a child care center at this location will not produce a adverse impact on the economic values of adjacent properties. 3. The maintenance of the applicant's child care center will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities, public utilities, schools, public parks or the natural environment. 4. The applicant's operation of a child care center does not generate such noise and traffic conditions as to justify turning down the application for a conditional use permit on that basis. 5. The applicant's operation of a child care center at this location shall not work in unreasonable hardship on surrounding property owners. The applicant's operations of a child care center has little, if any, impact on the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood because she has taken great efforts to ensure that this location does not have the appearance of a business establishment. 6. A substantial majority of the persons testifying at the public hearings spoke in favor of the application, including those persons residing on either side of the applicant's home. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER - Page 2 ja 9B-52 7. There is a growing need for child care centers sprinkled throughout residential neighborhoods in the City of Chubbuck. 8. The applicant appears to comply fully with the requirements applicable to the operations of a home occupation. 9. The requested conditional use permit should be granted, subject to the conditions set forth hereinafter. DECISION & ORDER The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finds that the request of Katherine D. Watson for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care center should be, and herebye is, approved subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant shall not, at any point in time, care for more than fifteen children. B. The applicant shall maintain three off street parking spaces available to those persons utilizing the child care services which she offers. This requirement may be satisfied by the applicant's maintaining no more than one automobile in her double car driveway during the hours that her child care center is in operation. C. The applicant shall not erect any signs advertising her business which is visible from streets, sidewalks, or adjoining private property. D. This conditional use permit shall be subject to a review at the first regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission following the first anniversary of the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit. At that time, the Land Use and Development Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit, impose further conditions, or revoke the same. Chairman, Chu ucZ Land Use and Development Commission FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER - Page 3 ja 9B-52