18 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT findings and then discover the true classification. She noted that it may be classified as a child-care center during the day and an adult recreational facility at night and during the summer. Chair Blank noted that he was very familiar with the neighborhood because his son attended Quarry Lane School. He did not believe there was a parking issue at all. He believed that with respect to the "free to come and go" issue, the children could not be physically restrained. As a parent, he typically felt comfortable leaving his child at an instructional facility once he had checked the site. He believed that too much had been made of that issue and noted that even on closed-campus high schools, the students were free to come and go, regardless of consequences. He believed the Planning Commission could vote to deny or could vote to approve with conditions that would make the conditional use permit satisfactory to the Commission, such as licensing or other procedures. He noted that the Commission had heard a considerable amount of compassionate and heartfelt testimony and had no doubt that Mr. Pfund ran an excellent program. He suggested that whether the applicant believed his facility was a daycare or not, it may be best to obtain a daycare license or to comply with the requirements of a daycare facility. He believed that would remove any question with respect to staff s expectations. He noted that if the Commission denied this application, the applicant would have to start at square one. Mr. Roush noted that may be construed as imposing a business plan on the applicant that he may not want to pursue. Chair Blank understood the concern and added that it would be the applicant's choice whether or not to comply with the conditions to obtain the conditional use permit. Mr. Roush suggested that the Planning Commission inay wish to deny the application without prejudice and that a different application or business plan by the applicant may be considered to be different enough so that we would not have to wait for one year before resubmitting the application. Chair Blank liked the concept of denying the application without prejudice. Commissioner Fox inquired whether she could restate her motion with an amendment. Commissioner Olson did not believe that parking was an issue. Commissioner Fox moved to deny PCUP -200 without prejudice, based on the inability to make conditional use permit Findings No. 2 and 3. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding Commission Fox's basis for denial based on Finding No. 3, Commissioner Fox replied that it discussed the issue of the applicant not ceasing operations as directed by staff within the prescribed timeframe. She noted that the letters referred to by Chair Blank regarding the tenant space in Dublin also entered into her assessment. She also understood that in 2000-2003, when the applicant moved to the new location, the City of Dublin requested the submittal of the application over the course of several months with three letters. She believed there was an inconsistency between the three business plans and added that DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-2008 Page 13 of 15