06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment #1—Violations of 1977 Regulations (Also see attached letter from Attorney Stu Flashman) • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Condition #1: "... the guiding standards for the development of the site shall be that... the buildings be designed so that activities will be focused toward the southern portion of the subject property:' • VIOLATION #1: Since the Millers house and the Masons backyard area are both on the north side, activities in the backyard area violate condition #1. - Condition #20: "That the applicant provide an effective buffer between the development and the single family residential areasurrounding the property." Planner Donna Decker, in an email to the Millers, defined the "buffer" as the backyard area. • VIOLATION #2: The Masons' use of the backyard area violates the required "buffer." - Catering company: the catering company has no conditions in the Masons' CUP • VIOLATION #3: The catering company has no CUP to operate in the Masons' kitchen. • VIOLATION #4: The catering co., which is completely unrelated to the Masons, should not have use of the backyard for their own catering events —as advertised on their web site —which creates additional traffic and an additional noise nuisance. • Staff Report - The 1977 Staff Report showed the Planning Commissions intent to "minimize any noise generated from within (the structure)" • VtOLATION #5: Having parties in the backyard, directly across from the Millers fence line violates the intent of the staff report to "minimize any noise generated from within [the structure)." • Design Review - The 1977 Design Review Board states, "The entrance to the building would be on the south side. There would be no windows in the other three elevations and the only other opening would be to emergency exits (one on the east side and the other on the north side). Because the building would be used for lodge rituals, windows are not desired. Placing the entrance on the south side of the building concentrates outdoor activities as far as possible from the bordering residences. This is in conformance with the requirements of the conditional use permit approval." • VIOLATION #6: The 1977 Design Review Board clearly restricted "openings" or doors /windows on the side of the building facing the neighbors, and clearly understood that converting the backyard area into an outdoor entertainment area violated the design review. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY that restricting building "openings" (AKA doors /windows) on the north side is consistent with "the requirements of the conditional use permit." Therefore, it is clear that the design review and CUP do not allow activities in the buffer space between the Masons building and the neighboring residences. - The Masonic building required a design review by the Planning Department when it was originally built in 1977; therefore, a design review by the City is required before any renovations. o VIOLATION #7: The City and the Masons violated the City's process that required design review and approval before changing the function of the building. Page 7 of 18