06 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment #1 —The City's Errors & Omissions in the Jan. 28, 2015 Staff Report 1. Page 2 of the 2015 Staff Report discusses the 1977 conditions of approval and states, "Conditions of approval indicate that an effective buffer be provided between the Lodge and the surrounding residential neighborhood." • The City omitted a major clarifying point which is the definition of the buffer. Specifically, the buffer was defined in an email on 3/24/2009 by City Planner, Donna Decker, who states, "At the time of the bldg. approval, providing the maximum distance between the building and the residential area was accepted as the 'buffer' and no other requirements were requested. Therefore, inclusion of this condition did not appear appropriate, in that the City has accepted the distance as the 'adequate buffer' provided." • That is, the land between the Millers and the Masons is there to function as a buffer to protect the neighbors from a noise nuisance created by the Masons. • Therefore, when the Masons hold parties in the buffer, they are violating their CUP. 2. Page 2 of the 2015 Staff Report continues discussing the 1977 conditions of approval and states, "Since the 1977 approvals, the Masonic center removed the original kitchen door and installed a new double /French door in the dining hall." • The City omitted a major point which is that installing the double /French door not only violates the design review but also violates the CUP. • 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 tone 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." • Therefore, 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. • Note: prohibition of doors facing the neighbors is not stated in the CUP because it would be redundant given that it is stated in the design review, and the design review links to the CUP via the statement, "This is in conformance with the requirements of the conditional use permit approval." 3. Page 2 of the 2015 Staff Report discusses the catering company and states, "In addition, (previously) the City permitted catering businesses to use the building." • This statement is misleading because it omits that although a catering business was allowed starting in 2000, it had very restricted functions and therefore did not remotely resemble a true catering company. 9