PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

is, it seems to me we have a loophole that once you get your initial use permit under a certain set of conditions under a certain precedent, you can kind of move away from that and start to loosely interpret that use permit as we're seeing here. So again, you start off with a fraternal organization or place of assembly for a religious body or what have you, and while because we can use it for that, I'm going to use it for this. I'm going to rent out our kitchen and I'm going to have vans sitting in the parking lot that are mechanically unsound for months at a time, so it kind of grows and grows and grows and now we have the issue that we have. And, you know, I don't envy your position. I don't envy the Miller's position. This is truly the definition of a quandary. What do we do and what precedent do we set for the rest of the City where we might have similar conflicts. I can only go back to what I would support personally and that would be a substantial re- working of this use permit, perhaps not a revocation outright at this point but something much different than it was in 1977 and much different than what staff is proposing now. Thank you. Commissioner Nagler: When you say much different, what then? Broome: I think the definitions need to be tightened up. I think the uses need to be tightened up. I think that perhaps a solution would be that the organization to whom it's issued to have to use it a majority of the time and that percentage is fixed. Let's say they have to use it 75 percent of the time for their meetings or their related events, ancillary uses per se, and then any outside uses or rentals or what have you would be a smaller percentage of that. So that change would allow for that organization to grow and contract and grow and contract over time. It would also define something. Right now we have a big, wide birth and it's up to interpretation as we've heard from staff, as we've heard from their attorney. It's defined but it's not defined, so that would be my suggestion. Commissioner Nagler: Thank you. Jann Bartow: I also live in Valley Trails and I'm a board member of the Valley Trails HOA, also known now as coalitions. This is a letter that was submitted back in 2014 just going through restated in regards to the board members' support for the Millers. It's dated September 14, 2014 and there was a meeting held by the Valley Trails volunteers HOA and there were approximately 60 people at that time that attended, which are primarily all residents. It sags, "Ms. Miller presented to our volunteer Valley Trails HOA meeting on September 14t and explained to us the current situation at the Masonic Lodge building located at 3370 Hopyard Road. Attached are both the Miller's letters and their attorney's letters. Our members are very concerned about the intrusion of the commercial activities into the residential area in the guise of accessory uses. The City needs to protect, not destroy, the peace and the tranquility of our residential neighborhoods. The Valley Trails HOA agrees with the Millers that these commercial activities and the associated noise nuisance should not be occurring in a residential neighborhood. We also agree that the Planning Department's justifications of the commercial activities via the accessory use provision in the zoning code are not appropriate." So as board members, we support the Miller's request to remove whatever you can out of this situation. Thank you. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 24 of 56