PC 101415 - Laserfiche WebLink

depending on the number and age of children, or maybe the younger children are outside at different times than the older children. He indicated that the condition is for seven children in the yard at a given time, which is equivalent to what they could have done with a small family daycare. He noted that what staff has tried to do is make sure the impacts are similar to a small family daycare based on State regulations. Chair Allen noted that the applicant mentioned they have four slots for infants, which would leave eight slots for non - infants, who would be old enough to play outside. She inquired if there is a possibility to re- consider having only four children outside at a time, which would be half the number of eligible children. Mr. Beaudin replied that what staff is trying to do is not stretch its ability to regulate, which is really limited, so staff is trying to keep the conditions of approval relatively consistent with a small family daycare and those kinds of impacts. He indicated that is why staff went out to seven children because that is kind of the threshold that is set at this small family daycare level, and the idea of creating two separate play times seemed like a reasonable attempt to address the potential impacts. Commissioner O'Connor stated that there seems to be concern over noise. He inquired, assuming this daycare were approved with the conditions of approval as written, and down the road, staff receives a lot of complaints about the noise and things are getting worse, say, the noise goes over the 60 dBA, if the Commission would be able to look at requiring further noise mitigation, as opposed to trying to solve that today. Mr. Beaudin said yes. He stated that things like this become Code Enforcement discussions first, and the problem is addressed in a reasonable way to meet the City's standards. He added that there is a condition of approval included in the packet, as with all of the City's Conditional Use Permits, that states that if there is an ongoing problem, the project can be brought back before the Commission for additional review and modification of the conditions at a noticed public hearing. Commissioner Balch stated that he generally supports daycares being sporadically spaced throughout the City, and he is questioning the applicant heavily to gain understanding. He indicated that he could easily get hung up with the number of cars the applicants own, per se, but there could be neighbors who have an abundance of cars and park 15 cars on the street, over -using their per se implied allocation of parking just as much. He stated that he liked the condition regarding having the applicant park their two cars in the garage because he does not like the idea that the applicants' parking presumes that the two spots in front of his home are available only for him, as these are obviously public parking spaces similar to any other spots on the street. He added that he also does not like the implication that property taxes and the fact that the applicant is a renter versus a resident/owner are being factored in, because he is sure everyone generates sales tax revenue for the City by buying groceries at a local grocery store, and to imply that property tax should be factored into any opinion one makes on this dais would be to imply that the voting majority at Ruby Hill should be more so than the voting majority at a lower -value home within the City limits. He concluded that, that being said, he supports the application to deny the appeal and support the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2015 Page 32 of 35