Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii 7, 2005 Page 25 of 55 Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we move -- or forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 05-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Stephanie Edwards by Stephanie Edwards - 1537 West 15th Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 05-011 and like to get our staff report, please. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for a -- I guess my request did not show up. This is for the Stephanie Edwards day care. Or it's a group child-care facility is what it's determined. According to the Meridian City Code, that is a child-care facility for six to 12 children and that's allowed in an R-8 district as a conditional use, which is what we are hearing tonight. This is kind of a grade out site plan that indicates that there is existing vegetation in the front yard -- this is a single-family residence. There is a backyard that is entirely fenced in, as well as there is a paved area up in the front of the house and a garage to the side of the house and when this was reviewed, it was determined that with the number of children, roughly six, on the site, that is roughly where it would probably end up being, according to state code for the licensing agreements and the fire code for securing permits over seven children, this site is probably going to be closer to six than 12 is what we determined and with that there is enough driveway here for one parked car, a car parked in the garage, as well as a loading area in that driveway that would be allowable. The standards that I referred to in this staff report more closely resemble the accessory use standards as listed for a day care facility, which is one to five children, and that is because the single family residence as a -- with a child care facility is an accessory use more closely resembles this project than the conditional use standards which resembled the last project that you just heard and that's why I applied those as more of the standards for this conditional use hearing. Staff has recommended approval of this site, with the conditions that have been stated in the staff report, and I will answer any questions. Rohm: Thanks, Josh. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Edwards: I'm Stephanie Edwards, representing myself, and my intentions are to run a small child care facility -- Rohm: You need to state your address, too, please. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 26 of 55 Edwards: Oh. 1537 West 15th Street in Meridian. And my intentions are to run a small facility in my home with a base of about six children, possibly a few part-timers here and there, through a pre-school program. Rohm: I guess a question that I would have of you is are you aware of the limitations based upon the size of the dwelling and -- as far as the number of children you can have? Are you familiar with those - Edwards: I read through all the material that was given to me for the permit. Rohm: I'm curious how many -- I don't know the exact ratio of square feet to children. Can you give me that? Edwards: I guess that's in my material from the fire inspection, I think. I don't have that right here, but I could certainly look that up for you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I actually was speaking earlier with staff and I do believe it is a hundred square foot per child. Borup: And that's of the space that's allocated to the child-care portion of the home. Moe: That is correct. Rohm: And I guess my only point to bring that up is with the square footage of your facility you wouldn't be able to go to the max of this size of -- I mean you can't go to 12, just because of the limitations based upon the size of the structure. Edwards: I hope to keep it about six. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thanks. Moe: I do have a couple questions -- or at least one. Based upon that you have made the statement six, but possibly some part-timers. Edwards: Yeah. Moe: Then, you're increasing your amount allotted. The fire department's not going to let you have any more than seven before you're going to need to do fire inspections and whatnot. So, I just kind of want to make sure you're aware of that. Edwards: We are in that process of having the fire inspection anyway. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Would you have any objection to limitations being placed not to exceed seven? Is that -- is that something that would get in the way of your business down there? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Aprii 7, 2005 Page 27 of 55 Edwards: I don't think so. I think seven to eight would be suitable. Rohm: Well, I think the point is that the -- the parking spaces associated with your development at six or seven, you have got so many spaces required, but if you go over that, then, the available parking that you currently have may not meet the requirement for that number of -- of children being taken care of there. So, we are kind of -- we are kind of in a spot here that we want, you know, obviously, to make recommendations that are in your best interest, but we also don't want to make recommendations that will put you in violation at such point in time that you fully develop and so that's kind of where we are going with this. Edwards: What I read in the report am I understanding that there is one parking space per employee and one parking space per ten children? Is that correct? I saw that in the information. Rohm: That's correct. Edwards: And that was - I'm a one vehicle family and I would be the only employee and I would be in the garage and, then, there is two other parking spaces in front with room to pull in and turn around. Newton-Huckabay: She's not going to max out. Rohm: Okay. Moe: This would be fine there. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Baird: If I could make a suggestion to have the applicant state on the record the maximum number. I heard as high as eight. The maximum number that she's requesting and as you consider that request in your deliberations, that if you do make a recommendation of approval, that you approve a specific number with the qualification that if that number would also be allowed by the fire department and other permitting authorities. So, before you you're required to look at the compatibility issues and if you think that seven or eight is appropriate, you can make a recommendation based on that. But I just want to make it clear for the record what she was requesting and that at such time as you do make a recommendation that you make clear the total number that you would find compatible. Rohm: And, thank you, I appreciate your input on that. And that's kind of where we are going with this is our recommendation to City Council would be somewhat based upon your testimony and if seven or eight is the max that you would see for this project, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 28 of 55 more than likely that -- I can't speak for any of the other Commissioners, but more than likely that would be the recommendation that we would be forwarding onto the Council. So, is seven or eight -- is that a -- Edwards: That would be a reason why. I would like to keep a base of about six, but, then, if I had one child go Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and, then, another child coming Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, I'd like to be able to overlap a little bit without being in violation. Rohm: Okay. So, eight's a good number for you? Edwards: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: My opinion would be that we defer the maximum to what -- did you say you're getting a fire inspection? Edwards: I am. Newton-Huckabay: Just stand with that. Rohm: Okay. Is that what we -- that works, too. Any other questions of the applicant from the Commission? Moe: No. Rohm: Thank you. Edwards: Thank you. Rohm: Further discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest that we put the limit -- obviously, it's to 12, but the same limit -- whatever the fire department -- the fire inspection -- Moe: Well, if she does have the inspection and it's okay, it just says seven or more children must pass the inspection. So, she -- she could, in fact, go up to the 12, if that's what we wanted, but after hearing her say up to eight, on the square footage -- I thought -- I'm apt to think that it should be just to eight at this time. Rohm: Okay. If there are no further questions, I look for a motion to -- Borup: Public testimony before -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii 7, 2005 Page 29 of 55 Rohm: Oh, excuse me. There is no public -- anybody else like to testify on this behalf? Seeing none -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing CUP 05-011. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05- 011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Can I still ask a question? Moe: That's where we are at. You bet. Newton-Huckabay: So, the one -- one child per one hundred square feet and there is 1,000 square feet, so ten kids? Borup: Well, I had understood it was the square footage of the portion of the home that would be used for day care. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: So, it's approximately a 1,000 square foot primary building will be used for the child-care center. Guenther: Chairman Rohm? Rohm: Yes. Guenther: That area that you're determining there is an approximate. The actual area will be determined by the fire inspection. They are the ones who -- when you also talk about livable space, you might have a thousand square foot footprint, but they take out a lot of issues like closet space, stairways, and so it might actually reduce that to seven or eight hundred square feet. Rohm: Maybe the way we could address this is have it up to eight, but, obviously, having to adhere to the fire department's limitations as the max, but the applicant has stated that she's not going to need more than eight, so somehow a motion to include the fire department's limitations with the max of eight, something like that, is that -- do you feel comfortable with that or would you just -- rather just leave it with the fire department's maximum and go from there? Newton-Huckabay: That's my preference. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 30 of 55 Moe: I really wouldn't have a problem with that either. Rohm: With that being said, I'll look for a motion. Borup: Okay. You're waiting for me. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care facility for six to 12 children by Stephanie Edwards, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff report for April 7th and with the following condition, that the number of children be limited to a maximum of eight, unless that number is reduced by the fire department report. Newton-Huckabay: I thought we agreed to defer to the fire department. Borup: Did we? Okay. That's why I wondered why you wanted me to do this. Moe: Well, you had written notes down, I figured you were doing it. Borup: How about I revise the second half of that motion. With the one exception being the number of children allowed will be that determined by the fire department inspection. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-010 Request for a re-subdivision of Lots 4 & 5, Block 1 of Bonito Subdivision for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 commercial building lots and 1 other lot on 4.06 acres in a CoG zone for Bonito Subdivision No.3 by Travis Burrows for Dave Evans Construction - 3041 & 2967 East Copperpoint Drive: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 05-010 and hear the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a re-subdivision of these three lots within Bonito final plat subdivision, which is also known as EI Dorado Subdivision, which was the preliminary portion, which also had the Conditional Use Permit that was issued for this type of mixed-use development. With that there are nine building lots that are proposed in this location in this configuration. One point that is incorrect on this site plan is that there is a 50-foot wide easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal in this location and, then, the applicant has indicated that there is a 35-foot wide irrigation easement in this location. The original Conditional Use Permit indicates that this 35-foot is the multi-