PL PACKET 05121989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Commissioner London said he also recognized how hard it was to find day 2 care but his only concern was that such a facility be "a good one" with 3 conditions, equipment and supervision adequate enough to provide that 4 kind of care. He agreed that having day care available in the same 5 complex would be wonderful for the parents but still saw potential 6 problems in this proposal which could be improved. i 7 Commissioner London told Mr. Solie he wasn't so much suggesting he 8 "corral the kids into one area," but rather that at least the back 9 perimeters of the property where there is an open area next to the 10 parking lot leading to a slope going down to the highway be fenced to 11 prevent kids from wandering away from only one supervisor. 12 Commissioner London concluded by saying he thought this facility should 13 be licensed under state requirements because . he would have real 14 reservations with setting a precedent -for other facilities of the same 15 type over which the City had so little control, especially over children 16 who are not under the supervision of their own parents or the day care. 17 During the discussion of her eliminating the apartment number from her 18 motion, Commissioner Franzese said she perceived that with the County 19 oversight and the City fire department having to know the location of 20 the facility to make the necessary fire inspection, the City might be 21 imposing unnecessary limitations on the permit by requiring specific 22 identification of the facility location. However, she 'conceded that she 23 was outnumbered by Commissioners who disagreed and included that 24 specification in the following: 25 Planning Commission Recommendation - --2-6-Motion -by Franzese, seconded-by Brownell to recommend--the City Council 27 grant a conditional use permit to Village Properties, Inc. for a Class 28 C Ramsey County Licensed Family Day Care facility for up to 14 children 29 to be located in Apartment 5, 3808 Macalaster Drive N.E. , finding that: 30 1. The use meets the specifications of Section 7, Subdivision 3 , number 31 3 for a conditional use permit and satisfies the conditions Minnesota 32 statutes and City ordinances require to be satisfied before a 33 conditional use permit can be authorized. 34 2. Staff received no calls in opposition to the permit before the hearing 35 and there was no public opposition to the proposal expressed during 36 the hearing. 37 3. The Commission perceives a real benefit from this use would be 38 provided for the residents of that apartment complex. 39 Voting on the motion: 40" Aye: Franzese, Brownell, Madden, Wagner. 4.1 Nay: London. 8