01 - Laserfiche WebLink

The staff report outlines options for the Council to pursue: 1) deny the application based upon inadequacy of facilities; 2) approve the application without the provision for temporary operation; 3) confirm the Planning Commission's approval with provisions for temporary conditional operation, which is recommended by staff. Councilmember McGovern noted the reasons she appealed the case and referred to Council Resolution 08-189 adopted in May of 2008. One whereas clause states: "After the review of materials presented in public testimony, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial of John Pfund's application for a CUP on the basis of finding 2 could not be made." Finding 2 states, "The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions it would be operated or maintained was detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity." A second whereas clause states, "The City Council concluded that Mr. Pfund needed a day care license in order to operate the facility as proposed." Thirdly; that "the City Council concluded that Mr. Pfund's program does not meet the requirements necessary to be exempt from childcare licensure from the State and that his program is not adrop-in recreation program." Councilmember McGovern said there were concerns regarding safety and allowing children to come and go freely which has been changed, but the fact remains that the operation is located in an industrial park where there is a great amount of truck traffic and people do not expect children to be in an industrial zone. Lastly, in the minutes of the May 6, 2008, paragraph 3 states: "Findings needed to be made in order to deny or approve the project include: 1) location, and whether it is appropriate for the zoning district; 2) that the location of the use is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City, and 3) that the uses comply with the zoning code." Staff could not make the three findings at all due to the fact that there are 5 parking spaces needed, the circulation is poor because it is a dead-end in the parking area, the proposal has children of all ages that could freely come and go, and the use does not comply with the zoning code. Councilmember Sullivan questioned why the applicant returned after direction was given to first secure his childcare license. Mr. Dolan said Mr. Pfund returned because he felt he was put in a "catch 22" situation. He needed to obtain local approval prior to the State approving him, and specifically asign-off by the local fire department which will not be done without planning approval. Staff felt the situation could be rationally addressed by explaining to him that he would need to obtain the license prior to the use permit going into effect, which Mr. Dolan said was received in writing from the State. Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned the "catch 22" situation, stating that no childcare facility can operate prior to having a license. Mr. Dolan said the State will not provide final approval unless there is signoff from the City, as well as other inspection signoffs. Councilmember Cook-Kallio voiced concern that the background check had not yet been completed and was originally applied for in April 2008. Councilmember Thorne noted that the application was one of the most extensively researched projects. Through all review, he questioned whether staff finds any reason to compel the Council to deny the project. Mr. Dolan said staff's recommendation is to approve it with conditions. City Council Minu[es Page 3 of 9 January 6, 2009