PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Planning Commission took at a break at 9:05 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting at 9:10 p.m. Chair Ritter: So I'll just recap. We just closed the public hearing so that means basically that we're not accepting any more comments from residents or anybody else and we're just going to discuss with staff what the process is and to try and get a resolution and possibly to vote on an option. I guess we'll bring it to the Commission. Anybody want to go first? Commissioner Allen: I have a question. It also gives it a little bit of my position but this is a staff question. I'm looking for process -wise how you suggest we would look at our options. I am open to supporting the Mason's core operation and essentially I believe the spirit of the original conditions of approval for this project and how it was operating prior to 2008, so I'm open to that. It seemed like it was co- existing in a positive way, but what that would mean is that there wouldn't be outdoor use in the future for non -Mason events and even for Mason events, we want to make sure it's manageable and BBQs are fine. So with that kind of positioning, I think about the findings and all, I can say I can support some of the findings with that kind of position, but if it wasn't for that, I could not support some of the findings. So in terms of alternatives, how would you - -I don't know how my fellow Commissioners feel, but if that was something people were leaning toward, how would you direct us to approach looking at options? And then, we can all talk about it. Weinstein: Well, these conditions —let's sort of go back one step and give you some background as to how we crafted these. It was made clear hopefully in the presentation, but these conditions represent our, staffs attempt at coming up with a reasonable set of conditions that is sensitive to the history of this dispute, which again, as many people have mentioned, has happened over the course of many, many years. So it is sensitive to that but it is also cognizant of the fact that we're essentially creating, or what staff's recommendation is that essentially creating a whole new CUP or a substantially changed CUP with lots of new conditions. After 40 years of having this CUP, it's a reasonable expectation that major changes would be made to the CUP. Commissioner Allen, in regards to your point, a good starting point would be to literally go through these conditions and adjust them according to the will of the Commission. These are our first attempt at what we think is a reasonable set of conditions, but there's no reason those couldn't be changed to reflect a prohibition on outdoor uses, Masonic uses or further limitations on the use of the outdoor area for Masonic uses even, and with those changes it seems like, as you suggested, the findings that we recommended can be adopted but if you also have changes to the findings that reflect your understanding of these conditions and how they address the impact, we can make changes to those as well. Commissioner Balch: I was going to suggest maybe we take a straw poll up here first. Chair Ritter: I want to ask one other question. My first question was originally did staff meet together with the Masons and the Millers and come up with these conditions of approval list? And it doesn't sound like the answer's yes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 28 of 56