PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 timeframe. She noted that the letters referred to by Chair Blank regarding the tenant space in Dublin declared unsafe and occupancy revoked in the January 27th 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. Chair Blank noted that the City's letter to cease operations was received December 31, 2007 which was New Year's Eve, stating that he must cease operations by January 4, 2008. Commissioner Fox noted that the applicant also did not comply with the conditions set forth in the February 13 letter from the City of Dublin. Chair Blank agreed with the first part of Finding No. 3 with respect to the inconsistency. He noted that the City of Pleasanton sent a letter to Mr. Pfund on August 17, 2007 requiring a second notice on September 25, 2007. He could feel comfortable with the inconsistency and multiple revisions during that time but did not feel comfortable criticizing the applicant because he was noticed on December 31, 2007 to cease operations by January 4, 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 35 of 42