Family Daycare Home Conditional Use Permit

At a glance

What: Request for a conditional use permit (agenda item 9) for a family daycare home for up to 12 children, ages 2 to 5, in an existing single-family house in District 1. The captions describe the program as "monastery inspired"; the term may be a mishearing of Montessori.
Where it stands: The Planning Commission recommended approval 6-4 on October 14, 2026, as modified: a handrail on the back steps and a cap of 10 children. The City Council makes the final decision.
What's next: A City Council hearing, date to be set by staff. The applicant said she could live with six children.

Run by the applicants with no other staff, 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday to Friday, staggered drop-off and pickup, state licensing being pursued. The fenced back yard is the play area; it includes an above-ground pool and deck, so staff recommended conditions keeping the pool enclosed (conditions 8 and 9) and a 4-foot gate.
The applicant does not live in the home. The permit would be held by a family member who does, with an LLC as the business.

Staff received one letter of support and five of opposition (traffic, property value, safety, noise). Commissioner Camp, who represents the district, said five of the 28 homes on the cul-de-sac objected, the S-shaped street has poor sight lines, drivers are likely to make turns in driveways, and the traffic study projects 48 trips a day against about 10 now. The applicant had not spoken with the objecting neighbors.
The vice chair said the business model is a poor fit for a residential street, and the district commissioner said he would have moved to deny.
Commissioner Anderson noted that the back steps appear to lack a railing and asked for it as a condition.
Commissioner Plumbley visited the site and found a quiet street. No public speakers signed up.

Commissioner Skunover moved approval with a railing requirement and a 10-child cap. Commissioner Camp offered a substitute motion with a six-child cap, seconded by Commissioner Anderson; the vote to make it the main motion failed 4-6.
The original motion passed 6-4 by roll call. Voting no: Commissioners Camp, Cromwell and Anderson and the vice chair. A commissioner commented that the applicant may want fewer children, "but our city needs more."

2026-10-14 - Planning Commission (auto-captioned recording of the October 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting)
2026-10-14 - Planning Commission

About 23 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting	Minutes
2026-10-14 - Planning Commission	23

2026-10-14 - Planning Commission — Pulled for a hearing at the district commissioner's request; recommended for approval 6-4 with a handrail condition and a 10-child cap after a six-child substitute failed.