03 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

f 11:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; and (2) provide (a) child transportation to the academy from elementary and middle schools, (b) an afternoon program for children between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 6:15 p.m., (c) an azea for homework activities, (d) after-school martial arts-related games and activities, (e) seasonal camps, and (f) caze and supervision from 9:00 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on school holidays, two weeks during the school winter break, and ten weeks during the school summer break. On February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the subject application. After hearing staff's presentation and taking public testimony, the Commission denied without prejudice the use permit by a 5-to-0 vote. The Commission felt that the appellant's use appeazed to be more of a childcare facility and that a State childcare license would be appropriate for this business. The Commission agreed that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses within Valley Business Pazk and that the appellant had tried to modify his use to address staff's initial concerns. However, the Commission felt that the current business operation would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfaze because children could freely come and go from the facility. Although the pazents would sign waivers designed to exempt the use from State licensing requirements, allowing grade school (and younger) children to come and go freely is not consistent with the City's sign-in/out policy for these types of uses. The Planning Commission disagreed with staff and believed they could make the findings related to appropriate use with the subject zoning district and compliance with applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Given the proposed scope of operations; the Planning Commission could not make Use Permit Finding Number 2. The applicant disagreed with the Commission's decision and appealed to the City Council. On May 6, 2008, the Council supported the Planning Commission's decision and denied the applicant's appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the application. The applicant has since revised his application and the operations of his business to address the City's concerns. The applicant has also been working with the Department of Social Services Child Caze Licensing Division (CCLD) in securing a childcare license for the subject use. CCLD has determined that the applicant has most of the education requirements necessary for him to be an administrator/director of a childcare facility. Once the applicant has completed the outstanding requirements, he will be able to hold a childcare license. The project was scheduled to be presented before the Planning Commission at the August 13 and 28 and September 10 and 24, 2008 meetings; however, staff received an increasing number of questions from Commission members after publication of the August 13 staff report. Staff requested that the project be continue in order to address the questions, which entailed receiving clarifying information from the Department of Social Services-Child Care Licensing Division. Staff has provided the questions with responses PCUP-229, Tri-valley Martial Arts Academy Planning Commission Page 2 of 12