16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox moved to deny PCUP-200, based on the inability to make any of the conditional use permit findings. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. Commissioner Pearce noted that she had no doubt that Mr. Pfund was a good teacher and that the program taught positive skills. She could not make Finding No. 2 with respect to the current business plan and could not find that it was not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because having the children free to come and go as they please was incompatible with the City's sign-in/sign-out policy. She noted that the applicant could continue to state that he did not provide care and supervision, but under the reading of the licensing requirements, since he provided structured activities, rules, instruction, he provides care and supervision, and a waiver did not repudiate that. She stated that she would like to see this business succeed and hoped that modifications could be made to the business plan. She noted that she could not support it with the way it was currently structured. Commissioner Olson noted that he had no doubt that this was a great program but had problems reconciling the statement that there was no care and supervision and the fact that the applicant picks the children up at school. He believed that at the kindergarten level, there should be supervision and care while they are in the applicant's presence. Commissioner Olson referred to his previous question regarding the definition of "school age" and although Grades K through 12 at the upper ages may not require care and supervision, Grades K through something does. He suggested that the way to solve the problem would be to get a license. Commissioner Olson indicated he would support the motion. Commissioner Narum noted that she could not make Finding No. 2 and could make Finding No. 1 with respect to the parking. She was uncomfortable with the motion on the floor and understood that the denial was based on the inability to make any of the findings. Commissioner Fox noted that she supported the motion with respect to parking because of the classification of the facility in Dublin according to the materials in the staff report. She noted that it had been classified as a community facility use in Dublin as well as an indoor recreational facility use. She noted that as an indoor recreational center, the parking ordinance states that one parking space would be required for every 50 square feet inside the building, which would require 67 parking spaces; that was further reduced to 45 parking spaces. She would prefer to support staff's findings and then discover the true classification. She noted that it may be classified as a child-care center during the day and an recreational facility at night and during the summer or some combination. 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 EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 16 of 19