PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Darmsted stated that this is the same situation with the other businesses in the business park. He added that there is adequate parking and that staff has confirmed this. Commissioner O’Connor asked Mr. Darmsted if there was adequate parking on his property, and Mr. Darmsted replied that there was no parking problem. Commissioner Narum stated that the applicant is asking for a use permit that would allow for five instructors at the same time, which means that there may be five students at the site as well. Mr. Darmsted said they were asking to have a total of five instructors who would come and go, some of whom would teach only one or two days a week, unlike in a school where they teach all day during the week. He confirmed, however, that there is a possibility that there could be five instructors at any one time. Commissioner Narum reiterated that the applicant is requesting a use permit for five instructors at the same time, which would potentially mean that five students could be on-site at the same time, thereby using a potential of ten parking spaces. She noted that there are four spaces available in front of the facility and that this is a parking issue. She agreed that children running around in the parking lot is a problem and that one solution would be to require the instructors to park on the street so the spaces in front of the business would be available to the students. She added that the children could also be required to be signed in and out and that they stay inside the building until they are picked up. Mr. Darmsted stated that the teachers have already been asked to park on the street and that two of them take public transit and do not drive. He added that parents have signed contracts and have been told that children may not be left there unattended. He reiterated that he believed there was no parking problem. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox moved to deny Case PCUP-237. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. Chair Pearce indicated that she would not support the motion, given the strict conditions to be placed on the project, the neighboring property owner’s recourse, the fact there have been no complaints, and staff’s impression of the parking situation and documented spaces. She stated that she was inclined to provide the applicant a second chance to show that the business can run well with expansion. Commissioner O’Connor noted there are many facilities in the Quarry Lane Business Park that have children in a mixed-use building and that he would also not support the motion. He added that he would like to include the condition that children be signed in and out. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 7 of 29