16 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 indicated he agreed with Commissioner Olson regarding requiring licensing. 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 may 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 asked for guidance regarding amending the motion. Commissioner Pearce asked for clarification from Mr. Roush regarding whether this would preclude the applicant from appealing the decision to the City Council. 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 the staff report discussed the issue of the applicant not ceasing operations as directed by staff within the prescribed timefraine. She noted that the letters referred to by Chair Blank regarding the tenant space in Dublin declared unsafe and occupancy revoked in the January 27t~' letter also entered into her assessment. She also understood that in the 2000-2003 timeframe, 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 were inconsistencies between the three business plans and added that the website that was submitted as an exhibit discussed supervision and care as well as supervised homework and disagrees with the waiver. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 17 of 19