PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson noted that the last sentence of the second paragraph under Business Operations on page 3 uses a double negative in the phrase “…the applicant who has expressed her concern and does not agree that this project should not be so conditioned.” He requested clarification regarding whether or not the applicant agrees with the signing in and signing out of children. Ms. Amos replied that the applicant is open to having a sign-in sheet for parents. In response to Chairperson Fox’s inquiry regarding whether the applicant has agreed to do this for all the children, Ms. Amos said yes. Commissioner Narum inquired if this has been included in the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Amos replied that it was not but that it would be part of the applicant’s business operation to have the parents sign their children into and out of the facility. Commissioner Blank noted that at the last meeting, Ms. Harryman and Ms. Decker advised that in terms of enforceability, it would be necessary to have conditions as part of the Conditions of Approval rather than as part of the staff report. Ms. Decker confirmed that the Planning Commission should place conditions in the Conditions of Approval if it wanted those conditions to be enforceable. She noted that the matter of signing in and out was included in the staff report, but it was not planned to be part of this project. She added that this was a concern from the standpoint of business operation as well as Code enforcement, should it not be complied with. She stated that enforcement would be based on someone’s complaint, at which point the Code enforcement process would start with the Code Enforcement Officer stepping in to determine if this were the case. She advised that the applicant has been informed of this condition and did not see a problem at this time with providing a sign-in sheet. Ms. Decker recommended that the Commission review the condition from both standpoints. Commissioner Narum commented that it appeared to her that the Commission was telling the applicant how to run her business and inquired if this was the role of the Commission. She stated that she believed the commercial lease would have required liability insurance, which would cover any liability on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Blank provided a brief history of the condition, citing that the Commission has placed this condition on other businesses with small children to have some acknowledgement that these children have indeed been signed in and picked up. He added that the Commission has also been put in situations in the past where it wanted to pull a business’ use permit because of egregious behavior but was unable to do so because there was no condition in place. He stated that it was not the Commission’s intent to dictate to the business owner how to run his or her business but to provide a mechanism for ensuring the safety of the children and the ability of the Planning Commission to review this, if necessary. Chairperson Fox noted that one of the conditional use findings the Planning Commission has to make is that the project will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. She stated that a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 3 of 13