PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

since 2006 that's what's happened with the Masons. They have been conducting parties and events of all types outside their building right across our fence line for money. They collect money for people they're renting the building to. That's commerce. Now, this is a complicated issue as you've seen lots of material we presented to you. We're sorry about that you had to read through it, but there really is a simple question here. The question is should a quiet, private, non - commercial fraternity in a residential zone be allowed to morph into a noisy commercial business that ruins the lives and damages the property of the people who live close to them so they can make money? That's the fundamental issue. Put yourself in our house and the house of people behind me. That's what this is about. Now staff has suggested the conditional use permit is not clear about the outside building use. We would disagree with that in the staff report. If you look back in 1977 until 2006 and I've lived in the house since 1985, there were absolutely no events of any kind. I thought the building was abandoned. The CUP was a perfect solution, perfect. In fact, even in 2008 the City said the existing entitlement does not allow outdoor use on any side of the structure. In the last staff report in 2015, staff said, enforcing the conditions of the CUP would not allow continued active use of the backyard. So, it's very clear to us both from the history and from the comments from the City that the Masons are not allowed to use the outside property. Now, there were absolutely no problems of any kind until they modified their building, put in French doors, landscaped the outside and brought the inside activity outside into our lives. So, Chair Ritter you asked what we would suggest going forward? Enforce the current CUP and keep the activity inside. That worked beautifully. The Masons could do whatever they wanted inside their building with absolutely no complaint from residents around it. But, once that activity comes outside, there is no way to control is. And again, if it were your house, would you want to be outside with your friends on a Saturday night with 200 people across your fence line partying so the people next door could make money? We would say, you wouldn't want to do that, nor would we. We have our attorney to speak more to the specific codes and issues with this account and we'd like to climb up second if that's possible. We appreciate your time very much on this. Thank you. Stuart Flashman: Good evening Commissioners and I really appreciate your spending the effort and time on this issue. It is a serious one for my clients and it's been a long- standing one and it's been very frustrating for them to have to live with this for as long as they have. As I indicated in my recent letter to the City, when the City allowed the Mason's to go ahead and landscape the backyard and put in the glass doors and put in the patio, they basically literally opened the door to a whole new range of problems for my clients, and those problems should not have been there because the use permit that was granted in 1977 was pretty specific about saying that the uses are supposed to be concentrated on the southern side of the property. Well, all those glass doors, the patio, the landscaping in the backyard, that's all on the north side where there's not supposed to be activities going on. That's supposed to be on the southern side, and the City just went ahead and let that all happen and essentially since then has turned a blind eye to it and continued to let that sort of stuff happen. And I want to talk a little bit about what that use permit was about because when a use permit is granted, as you know, it has conditions attached to it and you also have to make findings. One of those findings PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 15 of 56