20 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 11 Amy Statham Subject: FW: Chabad appeal - Further food for thought Attachments: Chabad building, gutter and roof disrepair (4)_LI jpg; chabad rubbish and debris facing s. Valley Trails.JPG From: nallen Sent: Monday,July 9, 2018 6:05 PM To:citycouncil Cc: Gerry Beaudin <; Ellen Clark;Julie Harryman Subject: Chabad appeal- Further food for thought Hello Mayor Thorne and Council Members Olson, Narum, Brown and Pentin, As you may know, I voted in the majority on June 27th to support the conditions in the Chabad application. I woke up the next morning with regrets I voted yes without insuring the following additional conditions were in place (specifically related to outdoor event use). I was planning to ask for a reconsideration of my vote. However,given this has been appealed, this is now in your hands. I wanted to share what I planned to request on reconsideration. These conditions would better protect the neighbors, while also still giving Chabad additional flexibility. Summary • In summary, my vote did not go far enough to balance the rights of both Chabad and the neighbors. I believe more protections should be in place for the neighbors relative to outdoor events, at least at the outset. • Chabad is different than the Mason's and should be given leniency on the use of the outdoors for events, especially religious events. But we need the right balance o OK to allow day care with recommended hours for outdoor play. Day care is a standard use within churches these days and hours for play are consistent with recent CUPs/large Day cares(and what Chabad proposed). o Pare back small events definition to prevent potential of loud parties on almost unlimited basis, or overflow of large inside events to the patio on a regular basis. o Consider reducing number of large outdoor events and not have more than 1 per month. If my next door neighbor had 120 people over even monthly,this would seem excessive. • A challenge you may have with this application is that some other churches(especially St. Clare's) have minimal restrictions in their CUPs and it may cause you to think we should have minimal restrictions too I disagree because: o Old CUPs, such as St. Clare's, are not the model of current CUPs which are much more rigorous. St Clare's would never have been approved as is. We should use our current best practices to guide us (e.g., We regularly place restrictions on things such as playtime hours, location of noise generating activities, events, etc. We also deny applications because they are close to residences such as we did with a recent Ruby Hills application). o Aside from St.Clare's,the other examples cited, are much further from residences and would likely have much less risk of noise impacts for events. o These is a long history of protecting neighbors against excessive noise at this property and the owner bought property understanding history. We are already allowing much more flexibility than has ever been offered before for this specific site. • I recommend a phased,trust but verify approach, to loosening up conditions for the outdoor use of the property for events. This will better protect the neighbors and balance the risks you are managing. 1