PC 062216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Weinstein: We've had lots of independent conversations over the course of the last several years especially with the Millers and the Masons, lots of face -to -face meetings. I'm not sure when the last time there was one where the Millers, the Masons and the City staff were in the room together to discuss these things. I think the vast majority of all of the conversations happened independently. But we talked to both parties many, many times and reviewed lots and lots of correspondence from both so I know we can say these conditions have been crafted based on input from both parties. Chair Ritter: Yes, independently you've been doing that. You just never got together and said, let's make a deal. There's an option that we continue this and we say you guys go back and sit down in a room and figure it out for 30 days and then come back to us as an option. I don't know. It's just amazing that it's taken this long to get to this; but anyway, you were going to ask a question. Commissioner Balch: Well, that kind of threw me off. That approach if I may Chair Ritter, wasn't that the 2009 Planning Commission approach? The "go work it out in a room "? Weinstein: Yes, I mean we've tried lots of different ways of getting to the end of this problem or even the bottom of it, and yes, we tried face -to -face meetings at one point. The Planning Commission back in 2009 sent the issue back for further discussion and negotiation. All levels of City staff have been involved, from Planning staff and others in Community Development, all the way up to the City Manager's Office. Elected officials were involved a couple of years ago and no resolution was crafted or reached, so I don't know how successful a similar endeavor would be where we could get all of the parties together in one room and work out a solution. I'm not confident that would work. Commissioner Balch: So to go back to my initial question, I don't know how everyone feels but I think we could maybe talk through a few issues and just get a quick read on where we're at. So I guess I'll start with something as the easiest in my opinion. So the ancillary structures —are we supportive of them staying or are we thinking they should go? I'll just go first and I just think they should go. Commissioner Nagler: I'm not going to be cooperative to your approach, I'm sorry. Commissioner Balch: Okay, the straw poll? Commissioner Nagler: The straw poll. This conversation has been so difficult that it's gone on for so long that I'm not convinced, I'm sorry to say, that today is the day it ought to get solved when the property is in escrow to be sold and there's a chance that it's less about the actual number of days an outside party could use the backyard or ... it may be less about that than there is clearly absolutely no trust between the two parties to this conversation. And it could be that a conversation between the Millers and other neighbors and Chabad, just because there's no reason to distrust one another, could achieve a different result. And I do believe just to say directly, I do believe that if we were to continue this conversation which is a totally reasonable way to approach it, that we would be establishing parameters for a conversation that ought to occur privately and not have the size of the sandbox that binds the public if it's possible. And in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 29 of 56