SR 06:033 - Laserfiche WebLink

two years at another location, then they moved into their current home in December 2004. When they were considering a large family day care, their realtor stated that space concentration, noise, and traffic would be the main issues. He described the history of his purchase process and due diligence with the City Planning Department. He noted that a small family day care could be up to eight children, and a large family day care was seven to 14 children. He noted that the capacity in an average large family day care is 10 to II children, which would be approximately two to three more children in their day care. While studying the traffic on the street, he had personally observed that only the neighbors sped up in their area. He noted that they would strictly adhere to the rule of ensuring the parents use the driveway. He added that they would do everything possible to ensure that their customers follow the rules. Commissioner Fox noted that the traffic study stated that with 200 households, and 10 trips per household, there would be 2,000 trips in the development. She calculated that six additional cars would be an increase of 0.6 percent. Ms. Decker advised that the figure was derived for single-family residential developments and was estimated to be an average of 10 trips per day. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he had visited the neighborhood several times. Commissioner Fox disclosed that she had visited the neighborhood as well. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Roberts recalled a previous public speaker who stated that several other people in the neighborhood were planning on opening family day care and was disturbed that the Thuses had applied first. She noted that many small day cares could be located on that street. Commissioner Blank expressed concern about the increased traffic and its impact on safety in the neighborhood. Commissioner Arkin noted that he could not support this application and believed that this use would not be compatible with a high-density neighborhood with narrower-than-usual private streets. He was also concerned with the lack of enforceability of traffic violations on a long loop such as this. Commissioner Arkin moved to deny PDUP-8, based on the fact that the conditional use permit findings could not be made due to the high density of the area; the site is not a single-family residential-zoned lot but a smaller lot zoned PUD-high density residential; the use would generate more traffic; the site is on a narrow, long looped private street with a blind corner which would create safety issues; and the nature of the private street creates an enforceability issue with regard to traffic problems. Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. Commissioner Blank noted that he was less concerned with the size of the lot than the traffic, safety, and enforceability issues. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, August 10,2005 Page 3 of 4