PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mark Preisendorf spoke in support of this project and noted that he worked several units down from the subject site. He noted that by the time he left at five, he was the last car out; that was normally before Mr. Pfund arrived. He noted that the entire parking lot was open and that he was welcome to use their parking spaces. He did not know Mr. Pfund personally but believed that he was a good neighbor. Gerald E. Hodnefield noted that he owned the building next door to the subject site. He did not have any particular problems with the applicant or the use. He expressed concern about the overall parking situation at the site but noted that if most of the students came after hours, he did not anticipate a maj or problem except that some tenants work until 6:00 p.m. He said that martial arts, gymnastics, and dance studios cause parking problems and that there is already a parking problem next door. He indicated that these business plans change and these businesses have recitals during business hours which cause significant parking problems. He expressed concern about potential events held during normal business hours and inquired how he should address any parking problems on his site. Cherie Francois spoke in support of this project and noted that her five-year-old son attended the martial arts classes. She recalled that at the beginning of his enrollment, Mr. Pfund made it clear that the academy was a martial arts program and not a daycare. She and her husband investigated the site and the academy very carefully and were satisfied that it would be a good place for their son. Regarding children leaving the facility, she noted that her son had participated in other programs such as camps ad gymnastics where he had to be signed out and that he was familiar and compliant with the routine of waiting to be picked up. She noted that her son became more self-confident, respectful, and physically stronger as a result of the program and that it was a very positive environment for him. She noted that there was no parking problem at the site and no traffic on the streets. Scott Handelman noted that he was an attorney and has represented Mr. Pfund before. He realized that the issue of daycare and children and State licensing had become a significant one for the Planning Commission and that it was largely a matter of semantics. He indicated it was an issue of choice. He realized that the Planning Commission retained the authority to grant or deny the use permit and noted that it was really the parents' choice to make this decision to bring their children to this academy. He had been impressed by the testimony in favor of the applicant and believed the real issue was whether the parents could make this choice for their own children, like a lot of things in our country which are based on individual choice. He indicated that Mr. Pfund's program is outside what we are used to because we need an appellation of a daycare and it should be a daycare; however, that is not the real issue, which is whether the parents can make this choice for their children. He believed the parents had demonstrated that they had already made the choice to bring their children to the facility and believed it was a disservice to the community to disallow that choice. He noted that the zoning permit had been originally granted to the applicant, which he relied upon to his detriment. Mr. Pfund had entered into athree-year lease at a very significant rental PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 30 of 42