PC 042716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch: Can I ask a question? So the entitlements don't pass to a new property owner, correct? Seto: That is because the Masonic Lodge has a CUP as a fraternal lodge and so Chabad is not that same organization so they're coming in for a different CUP. But if you had another fraternal organization coming in, you could potentially have them continue under that permit. Commissioner Balch: Because it's a new entitlement per se. Okay. So if I may further this, so the group I recall asked to bring the Masonic Center's CUP back, right? And we understand the delays to this point but isn't that horse the lead horse at this point? Weinstein: In considering what our original expectation was, was that the property sale and Chabad's CUP would be wrapped up relatively fast and so the neighbors who had issues with the activities at the Masonic Lodge agreed to hold off on what we had originally planned to do which was to bring the Masonic Lodge's CUP back to you for re- working. However, that process has taken a lot longer than expected and in the meantime the neighbors are still raising complaints about what's currently happening at the Masonic Lodge. Again, the timeline of Chabad coming back with this CUP is uncertain and along with associated property sales and we agreed to bring the Masonic Lodge's existing CUP back to the Planning Commission for a rework. But that could be followed very closely by another CUP application that would replace the Masonic Lodge's existing CUP. Commissioner Balch: So if I may, I'll just venture to say that I could clearly understand the complexity and would hate to have staff to do double work, but I think this body has asked that the Masonic Lodge come up. I remember us voting on it. I remember Gina was here at the time, and I think we wanted it to come back. I remember the Miller's requested an extension, but I'm just re- emphasizing the request was made. Chair Ritter: But there was ownership change. Commissioner Balch: There could be many things that could delay it but I'd hate to have this conversation a year from now and it's not back yet. Weinstein: So yeah, that's exactly what's happening right now. Just to be clear, again, the expectation was that the property sale would happen fast and that Chabad would come in with a complete CUP, and the Millers who are primarily the complainants in this case, agreed to hold off. They did want to spend time re- working an existing CUP only to have it be replaced by an additional use permit, but we're at the point where we are bringing the existing CUP back to the Commission. Commissioner Balch: And my point to that is that regardless of the Miller's actions or requests, the Planning Commission has asked for it to come back. So that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a vote that we did and I think it was unanimous —I don't want to state that it's not familiar, but we've asked for it to come back under the standard process. If there's something that's amiss, we can re- evaluate conditional uses, right? Weinstein: Right. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 27, 2016 Page 42 of 43