20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Amy Statham From:Greg O'Connor Sent:Saturday,July 28, 2018 11:12 To:Jerry Thorne Kathy Narum ;Jerry Pentin; Karla Brown Arne Olson; Gerry Beaudin ; Ellen Clark> Subject:Chabad CUP Application (Appeal) Mayor and City Council Members, I know the City Council understands the reasons for the original Conditions of Approval placed on the Masons for this specific building in 1977; and the City Council was correct to unanimously reapply those conditions in 2016. It is wrong for anyone to now assert that the Chabad is different from the Masons and should be given leniency on the use of the outdoor space for events, even religious events. The original CUP was approved in 1977, long before any noise issues began with the Masons sometime around 2006. Saint Clare's Church was approved and built (including the parking lot)prior to 1977, and was the only facility anticipated for this property. In 1977, when Saint Clare's wanted to split off this acre of land for sale to the Masons, the Planning Commission was very concerned about an additional 8,000 sq. ft. building (and the number of people that could use such space) squeezed in between the existing parking lot and the neighborhood to the north. The Masons were not known to be a raucous group in 1977, yet the Planning Commission still insisted on such conditions as: * NO doors or windows on the north or west sides of the building, except one solid door on the north side for emergency egress only. * NO outdoor use on the north or west sides of the building (the buffer zone). Any outdoor activity was to be focused on the southern side of the building (the front door and parking lot). * NO amplified music at any time. The original CUP was to run with the land, for ANY user. Today's discussions are not directed to any religious organization, and certainly not a Jewish organization in particular, but would be the same for ANY user wishing to occupy/use this building. The Chabad fully understood the restrictions on this particular property long before their purchase. They had also met with city staff several times and were fully informed. They gambled with this purchase, apparently hoping to get what they wanted. They should, instead, have searched for a property that would have provided them with the uses they wanted/needed. My 2 cents, and hence my sole vote to deny this CUP application, as amended by the other planning commissioners. Greg O'Connor 1