20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Nagler said when the Commission was talking about the CUP for the Masons and said he had a different recollection of the Commission's conversation. He recalled trying to make a point that whatever recommendation or action they were taking was going to be precedential for the next occupant, and hearing from his fellow Commissioners that in fact every new occupant may have a different intention for the building and is welcomed by City ordinance to go through the CUP process and that CUPs are decided upon based on their merits, needs and balancing of the community and interests. The new occupant now has a different intention for the use of the building and therefore, based upon the Commission's prior commentary, it is completely appropriate for the Commission to revisit the CUP whether or not the neighborhood believes that a prior decision made should be one made forever. This is a land use activity permitting question, but it is undeniable that the applicant practices a particular religion in the building and therefore is to be considered on that basis, and, that as a religious organization it is appropriate that this organization would want to have an early childhood education program and childcare as part of their religious teachings. He also believes it is not appropriate for a governmental entity to say that an appropriate way to teach children is to keep them indoors; as such he supports an outdoor play area. Given there is history with the neighbors' objections, he was supportive of the compromise that it be located on the side of the building facing St. Clare's Church. He visited the Chabad center around 6PM on evening and said there was a congregation of teenagers gathered in front of St. Clare's on the outdoor lawn. They were being respectful and pleasant and he would find it hard to imagine any neighbor looking out on this would call the police department. Again, he was not sure why the Commission believes it is appropriate to put restrictions and assume bad intent or behavior on a building that is right next door particularly if the loitering is to occur on the front side of the building which is not near neighbors. Therefore, his point is that he thinks the Commission needs to approach this application from a perspective of reasonableness and appropriateness, and take into account that neighbors have history with the occupants of the building; that the separation from the back of this building and neighbors is a shorter distance than is typical between religious institutions and other neighbors so restrictions are appropriate. He was supportive of childcare, supported the number specified in the staff recommendation for outdoor events, did not have much confidence in a process that sees how things go over the next year and come back and discuss it all over again, since he wasn't sure these neighbors and this occupant have the capacity to hold such a conversation. He would rather the Commission make a reasonable decision today regarding the number of outdoor activities possible and then see if there are problems. If there are problems, there are remedies. Regarding smaller events, Chair Nagler referred to challenges with respect to the use of the buffer, as there is no contemplation garden specifically included in the proposal. He questioned if it would be possible to approve the CUP, while reserving the decision as to use of the buffer area, to be brought back for a subsequent action if the applicant were to come up with a proposal for this area, If the applicant does not propose a specific use, it should be maintained as an unspecified area or by definition, a buffer. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2018 Page 12 of 15