Regarding whether a for-profit school is allowable Susan explained the process of the interactions with the applicants. She said that where there is a feature or a use that doesn’t fit neatly into any of the categories they ask for explanations in writing to help them better determine the fit. Regarding the use for educational purposes and how to enforce that use, Susan explained that everything the applicant has submitted and proposed are all part of the record including site plans, architectural review, and conditional use permit and are all part of the record - all a part of determining what is going on at the property. If there were to be any deviations from that in the future, generally it is brought to the City’s attention voluntarily by the applicant requesting a change(s), or it may be brought to the City’s attention through a complaint. There are different “routes” to take to investigate and bring them into compliance. Regarding the parking, Susan explained that normally they require a parking study to be used as the basis and usually applicants do not want to meet the minimum required code parking. In this case the proposed reduction of parking was so small, and the conditions of the operational aspects of the business are so few they felt comfortable in saying that 90 parking spaces maximum would be okay without a conditional use permit. As mentioned in the staff report it is notated that any further reduction would require a parking study.

In this case the proposed reduction of parking was so small, and the conditions of the operational aspects of the business are so few they felt comfortable in saying that 90 parking spaces maximum would be okay without a conditional use permit. As mentioned in the staff report it is notated that any further reduction would require a parking study. Regarding the original number of 102 spaces, Anna Krane explained that based on the combined uses the Code outlines the daycare parking requirements based on classroom space. The nature of the proposed use (i.e. shuttled employees) allowed the City to use the four spaces per 400 square feet requirement. She noted that currently with the vacant building there is a substantial amount of cars parked along the street during business hours as well as being parked on the site parking lot by patrons not related to the use. She added that 12 spaces were required for the daycare. Alderman Berger commented that the Code issue is one aspect and the comments made are from a practical point of view. The learning institute based upon the outline of the service group would not be parking on site. The activities at the early childhood center, other than various events, there will not be much parking.

Due to ADA requirements they are required to get participants on a relatively flat slope. Susan Istenes noted that the items under consideration is parking, traffic circulation, ingress, egress, placement of land uses, hours of operation, and buffering. In response to questions from the Board, Lance Cage stated that there would be 250 – 300 people that could possibly occupy the space; Mr. Cage reviewed the plans with regard to the playground, but said that the plans are conceptual; Jackson and Maryland Avenue entrances would be gated as shown on the plans; they have had discussions with MSD; there was no parking study performed. Regarding parking spaces taken from the green space, Mr. Clark stated that they do not want to have a stacking issue and would like the parents to pull in, turn right and have enough room. Mr. Cage stated that there is about 43 spots, 85 spaces are needed total. Alderman Berger commented that from experience people will park the car if they have a young child, they will not just “drop off.”

Alderman Berkowitz commented that this is different than MICDS. Alderman Harris commented that she would like to have more space to mitigate the activities to that parking lot and what is being done on the Westmoreland side. Jamie Raymond, 7545 Westmoreland, very excited about potential property use, but expressed concerns about reduction of greenspace for public use, and the use as a “university” in an R2 Zoning.

Alderman Harris commented that she would like to have more space to mitigate the activities to that parking lot and what is being done on the Westmoreland side. Jamie Raymond, 7545 Westmoreland, very excited about potential property use, but expressed concerns about reduction of greenspace for public use, and the use as a “university” in an R2 Zoning. Jeff Morrissey, 7611 Maryland, expressed concerns about trying to fit a commercial use into a residential zone of R2; concerned about the loss of substantial trees; feels the plan has challenges.