PC 012809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum agreed but thought that it should be identified and be listed, for instance, as PRZ-25 (a). Ms. Decker confirmed Commissioner Narum's statement that this particular Code amendment was initially part of PRZ-25 and was removed from the overall ordinance amendment for PRZ-25 in order to help streamline those projects. She noted that this began as a grass roots discussion from both staff and the Commission and placed under the Consent Calendar. She added that an opportunity to amend it will occur when PRZ-25 comes before the Commission. Commissioner Fox suggested that the discussion on PRZ-25 also include revisiting PRZ-37, Schools, Tutoring, and Recreational Facilities. Mr. Dolan stated that this would need to be done separately; either as a separate discussion or when PRZ-25 comes forward on the priority list. Commissioner Fox indicated that she would rate PRZ-37 as a higher priority than re-doing the entire PRZ-25 and wanted it to be separated out. Commissioner Blank requested to see the language that was adopted, and Commissioner Fox indicated that a Code amendment was done across multiple zoning districts. She noted that it began with 30-40 children and was then reduced to 20, such that when someone operates a recreation facility, indoor recreational facility, or private school with 20 children or less in the CC (Central Commercial), CN (Neighborhood Commercial), and some I (Industrial) Districts, the application no longer needs to come before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. She stated that in this sense, anyone "with a pulse" could obtain approval. Commissioner Narum referred to the Pfund application, stating that staff granted the application over the counter based upon this revision, and it turned out thatValley Business Park had not accepted it and still required a conditional use permit. She noted thatthis was not found out until after Mr. Pfund was already in business. Commissioner Blank stated that he seriously doubts that the guidance the Planning staff had was that if someone comes in "with a pulse" and makes an application to have a facility with 19 students, they automatically get the permitted use. Commissioner Fox stated that they currently do and that they also get a zoning clearance. Ms. Decker clarified that this would occur instraight-zoned properties and that if the site is located within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, a conditional use permit is still required. She added that this was the reason Mr. Pfund's application came before the Commission. Commissioner Blank stated that his point was that this approval was not due to the fact that the City had PRZ-37, but rather that an error was made at the counter and a CUP should have been required initially instead. Commissioner Narum agreed, but noted that when it comes to children in general, she thinks that a 24-hour waiting period should be required to ensure there are no outstanding nuances affecting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 28, 2009 Page 4 of 10