SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

• The City staff is claiming that the 1977 conditions are vague to justify their behavior of not enforcing the conditions over the past nine years. However, when all the related documents are considered, including the 1977 staff report and design review,the conditions are very clear. Staff has simply refused to enforce them. • Even the City staff has stated that the conditions prevent use of the backyard: o Nelson Fialho and Brian Dolan understood that the conditions prevented the use of the backyard. Because they knew the CUP prevented use of the backyard, they cited the "accessory use" provision to override the CUP and to allow use of the backyard. o The City's staff understood that the conditions prevented use of the backyard. In their January 28, 2015 staff report (note: this hearing that was canceled due to the Miller's medical emergency),the City staff stated in Option#1, "Enforcement of the existing conditions of approval would not allow continued use of the patio area." o Planner Donna Decker understood that the conditions prevented use of the backyard. In emails, Donna stated that the backyard is a buffer, which is not to be used for parties. • Instead of acknowledging these facts, over the past nine years, the City staff has created many different excuses for not enforcing the conditions—some of which were just bizarre. Please see Attachment#1 for a list of the staffs excuses. The fact that the City has changed its story multiple times regarding the reason for not enforcing the conditions speaks to the fact that staff simply did not want to enforce the conditions. • The 1977 conditions, which prohibited any activity in the buffer zone, worked perfectly since the neighbors peacefully coexisted with the Masons for over 30 years.The 1977 conditions did a great job by allowing a win-win for the neighbors and Masons to live side-by-side. The Masons could rent the inside of the building yet not create a noise nuisance for the neighbors. Before the Masons turned the backyard into an outdoor entertainment room, there were no detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighbors. Consequently,the CUP did not need to address hours of operation, etc. since no one was negatively affected by anything that that the Masons were doing since all activity was inside their building.The Millers have always contended that the Masons could do whatever they wanted inside the building as long as they did not create a noise nuisance. • By looking at all of the 1977 regulations below,you can see that the building was required to be designed to prevent people from using the backyard—since the design prevented access to the backyard.Specifically,the building was designed with only one door on the south (except for two emergency exits). Not even windows were allowed on the north side.The Masons directly violated this condition by installing the French doors. Furthermore, the building was to be designed to contain "any noise" within the building—obviously, events in the backyard would violate this. CUP Condition #1: "... activities were to be focused on the south..." CUP Condition #20: "that the applicant provide an effective buffer between the development and the single family residential area surrounding the property." Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Shepherd requested that some wording be inserted to safeguard the residents from the facility, by means of buffering Staff Report: While Lodge meetings are normally staid affairs... Lodge buildings are commonly rented for wedding receptions and parties, which can be nuisance