01 - Laserfiche WebLink

to meet those particular statements made by the Commission. However, what is before the Council is the Planning Commission's action, which is having children being picked up from schools and brought to his facility from the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. for 20 students, and for 10 students over the age of 16, having classes in the evening from 6:45 to 9:00 p.m. So, it is not a situation where the Council can consider a revised plan. Councilmember Sullivan clarified drop-in facilities similar to those like the Boys and Girls Clubs and confirmed with Ms. Decker these facilities were mostly for teenagers who could come and go, and that there was a time when the State created such a policy for these types of clubs due to neighborhood needs. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the background check and questioned if it was adequate. City Manager Fialho said he was not familiar with the organization; staff has tried to process the application on the grounds it was submitted, that the basis was a land use decision and staff has treated it in this regard. City Attorney Roush agreed and said staff is trying to determine whether the use is appropriate and one the Council is comfortable with. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that staff's primary concern is the proposal as submitted which is not consistent with the location as far as kids coming and going in an industrial park or where there is a lot of traffic. The second issue could be that based on staff's understanding of the operation, it is really not consistent with the waiver letter from the State. He asked if the City could place additional requirements on facilities like this and City Attorney Roush said the City is not bound by the regulations that the State has promulgated because it is not in statute; that the City is free to interpret to review what the use is and characterize it as what staff understands it to be, and make recommendation to the Council based on their interpretation of the use versus what the State would like to say it is. Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed that the State's letter was based on a phone conversation. City Manager Fialho clarified also with the Council that two of the three findings could be made by the Planning Commission and Finding 2 could not be made. Vice Mayor Thorne believed the business model was interesting, it no doubt serves value to many people, but he did not believe it was such a complicated issue. He said the operator is picking up kids as young as 5 years old, transporting them to a central location where they remain either under instruction or activities, to him this is a lot like a childcare facility, he shares some of the same concerns expressed by fellow Councilmembers and would support upholding the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Hosterman said it sounds like Mr. Pfund has a great program; he has been able to do marvelous things for many children and 10 speakers spoke in support of him and his operation. However it is about the Planning Commission's decision and the fact that the City has the latitude to determine what kind of use this is. In her mind, it is a childcare facility, and as such, for the protection of all families who may want to utilize his services, it would behoove Mr. Pfund to move through the State process, secure his State licensing, return and open up the business again and provide opportunity to families. Councilmember McGovern again voiced her opinion about having along-term childcare facility of any kind in an industrial zoning, suggested the City research more appropriate locations and a future policy for these types of businesses, hoped the Council supported the idea, and said if Mr. Pfund secures a childcare license, she confirmed he would then not have to do the 12 week program but operate year-round. City Council Minutes 9 May 6, 2008