AgdaPkt 2000-02-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LfA) current process), or 3) institute a use permit process for large family day care homes and grant such use permit as long as the home complies with "local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to such homes, and regulations adopted by the State Fire MarshaL..". Such a permit also needs to take into consideration the noise level generated by children. As part of the permit process, State law also requires that the City give notice of the proposed use to all adjoining property owners within 100 feet of the large family day care home 10 days prior to the hearing date3. Council Subcommittee/Planning Commission Recommendation 1) Notification Both the Council Subcommittee and Planning Commission recommended changes to the notification and review process for large family day care homes. Specifically, they recommended that staff notify surrounding property owners of a proposed large family day care home. Staff will visit the site and then will notify the neighbors within 100 ft. that it intends to approve such a use as long as the required conditions are met. (Under State law there is little discretion to deny the use unless the project does not conform ro~calordmance~ Once notified, the neighbors will have the opportunity to request a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator and attend the meeting to protest such a use. In that case, the Zoning Administrator will hear the testimony and make a determination to approve the use, approve it with conditions, or in some extreme cases could deny the permit. Any decision could be appealed to the City Council. The proposed changes stemmed from a situation that occurred several years ago at 743 Canyon Road. A non-discretionary permit was issued for a large family day care home at the residence. The neighbors residing at 751 Canyon requested a revocation of the permit since many of the parents used a private driveway easement on the property at 751 Canyon Road to drop off their children. After numerous meetings and mediation sessions, the issue was settled as the private easement was bought outright by the owners of 751 Canyon Road (the complaining party). The Council Subcommittee believed that the issue could have been solved much earlier if staff would have first visited the site and notified neighbors of the day care proposal. The proposed changes (public hearing, notification of neighbors, and $100 fee) would add additional time and cost to the application process. However, the advantage of such a process would be that the surrounding neighbors would be notified of the proposal, and have the opportunity to request a public hearing. 3 The Council Subcommittee originally required staff to notify property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property, the normal City notification requirements. However, State law requires only 100 ft. and the City rule cannot be more restrictive than State law. ""'""'~--"_.'""~"'T'-'