20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor referred to equal treatment of the preschool/daycare and asked why would a change in outside activities be changed if the City treats everybody equal, the CUP runs with the land and no outside activities were permitted under the Mason's CUP. Mr. Beaudin explained this is a new user and a community assembly use as well as a religious institution which also has applied for the daycare use. All of these factors require staff reviewing it in a fresh perspective based on the circumstances, zoning and conditions in the area and staff evaluates the merits of the application accordingly. Chair Nagler asked if it would be problematic for the Commission to maintain all of the previously applied conditions of the Mason's CUP, for this religious facility. Ms. Harryman explained that staff reviews the zoning of the property, and while it has history, a parcel of land can have various uses allowed. One use allowed is religious institution, which differs from the prior use; staff looks at the proposal as it stands today. Chair Nagler asked if it was possible from a legal perspective for the City to restrict the use of the building in the same way the building was restricted in its uses for non-religious occupancy. Ms. Harryman stated their office has reviewed cases relating to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Such cases are typically very fact driven and as a result she could not provide an answer either way. If this group came to the Commission with no history on the parcel the Commission would look at it fresh and should treat it like any other religious entity that wanted to use the parcel. She added that there are different parcels and different results. All are factually driven and she cited varying outcomes for daycare approvals, such as the one behind the Raley's Shopping Center and another at the Vintage Hills Shopping Center. Chair Nagler referred to discussion regarding a contemplation garden at the back side of the property. This was not part of the formal application and he asked for its status. Ms. Clark replied at this time it was not part of the application, but staff had suggested the applicant could return and propose this as an additional component. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. James Schwartz, attorney representing the applicant, disagreed with comments from the City Attorney relating to RLUIPA and voiced opposition to the following conditions and restrictions: • Condition No. 5 to relinquish one-third of their property, as no other house of worship has such measures and cited buildings and parking lots which are closer than Chabad's. • The 1997 permit stated that activity should focus away from the northern residents and not completely restrict activity and asked for no restrictions for the contemplation garden. Regarding Condition No. 8 for the outdoor playground, there are no other houses of worship with three hour limitations for use a day for a preschool. • Condition No. 28 relating to loitering is also an affront to all Jews, this is unconstitutional and staff did not name or indicate how this was applied elsewhere in the community and respectfully asked that this condition be removed. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2018 Page 2 of 15