SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

2013: The CUP does not prohibit use of the backyard. • Once again, City staff reversed its position on use of the backyard. • The Millers submit a code enforcement complaint for excessive noise from a party in the Masons' backyard area. • Walter Wickboldt, City Code Enforcement Officer, responded to the Millers' code enforcement by stating, "The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued to the Lodge in 1977 does not contain any conditions which prohibit the use of the outdoor areas of the Lodge property." 2015: The CUP does prohibit use of the backyard. • Once again, City staff changes its position on use of the backyard. • City staff prepared a staff report for the January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Hearing for Masons vs. Millers/Residents. (Note: this hearing was delayed due to the Millers' medical emergency.) • The staff report offered three options to the Planning Commission: o Option#1 would keep the original 1977 CUP without any changes. o Staff stated, "If the Planning Commission chooses this option, the approval and conditions of UP-77-13 and Design Review Z-77-172 would remain in their current form. No changes/additions to the conditions would be undertaken. Enforcement of the existing conditions of approval would not allow continued use of the patio area." • Clearly, staff understood that the 1977 CUP did not allow use of the backyard. 2016 (March): The CUP slightly addresses outdoor activities, but does not prohibit use of the backyard. • Once again, City staff reversed its position on use of the backyard. • The Millers submitted another code enforcement complaint for excessive noise from a party in the Masons' backyard area. • This time the code enforcement officer stated that the, "CUP slightly addresses outdoor activities ... but does not prohibit use of outdoor areas." • The enforcement officer cited Condition#1 in the CUP, "... that the buildings be designed so that activities will be focused toward the southern portion of the subiect property." • The Millers responded to the code enforcement officer stating, o "During the party on March 24, the backyard area on the north had several tables set up with food, blankets for people to sit on, and trash cans for the paper plates on which they were eating. The food, tables, blankets and trashcans were all set up on the north side of the backyard and none of these things were set up on the south side. Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that there was a clear focus on the North and no focus on the south. That is, this event was not'focused toward the southern portion of the subject property' which is a clear violation of Condition#1." • It seems apparent that the party was focused on the north of the property - not on the south -and that a code enforcement action against the Masons was called for. This did not happen. • The next correspondence we received from the City was very bizarre.