2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 2 during football games, and this review allows consideration of the likely effects of the 47 proposed renovation. With the campus development regulated by a Planned Unit 48 Development (PUD, Mr. Lloyd noted in Section 4.3 that staff’s analysis of the proposed 49 arrangement of outdoor athletic facilities is only a minor departure from the approved 50 PUD plans last updated in 2007, and therefore considered consistent with that plan. 51 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the proposed overall site and photometric plan and details of the 52 lights (Attachment C) and a similar light installation at St. Thomas University as an 53 example. Provided the proposed light poles are approved as part of this application, staff 54 believes that the proposed amenities can and will meet all applicable City Code 55 requirements. Mr. Lloyd noted that a CONDITIONAL USE approval can be rescinded if 56 the approved use fails to comply with Code requirements or any condition(s) of the 57 approval. 58 Mr. Lloyd noted that current parking would remain as currently provided; and staff does 59 not anticipated any intensification or practical impacts on parks, streets, or public 60 infrastructure. 61 Staff recommended approval of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE, as conditioned in 62 Section 7 of the report; and concluded his summary. 63 Member Stellmach questioned if staff thought the complaints on the current sound 64 system would be addressed and/or resolved by the proposed changes. 65 Mr. Lloyd advised that it was anticipated that the reorientation of the football stadium from 66 its current northward facing and sound broadcast direction should be addressed; 67 however, he was not sure of the remaining intensity, if any, that would impact the western 68 residential neighborhood where the noise complaints had predominantly come from that 69 area. 70 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd responded that to his knowledge, the City 71 had not fielded any complaints about the current lighting system. 72 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the nature of a Planned Unit 73 Development (PUD) and those things that were or could be approved under that umbrella 74 (e.g. setback requirements or variances), with facilities handled by Conditional Use if an 75 overarching PUD was not present; with some elements to the campus Master Plan that 76 may be, but not usually, handled by a Conditional Use approval. 77 Member Murphy noted that Section 4.1 of the staff report indicated the public address 78 systems and lights were part of the Conditional Use application, but not that the intent 79 was to install the public address system on the light towers, there appeared to be a 80 disconnect between the two issues. 81 Mr. Lloyd responded that the 2010 Zoning Code update would have incorporated those 82 issues; however, the campus Master had grandfathered status for pre-existing issues, 83 including the existing sound system. 84 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the reorientation of the field 85 was not viewed as a sufficient enough change to bring the sound system into 86 compliance; as there are no established requirements to determine if it better achieved 87 the issue, other than mitigating any known issues. 88 Chair Gisselquist questioned how often the field would be lit, with that question deferred 89 by staff to the applicant. 90 Regarding the photometric plan, Member Stellmach noted foot-candle forecasts over the 91 boundary area, and questioned how that compared to a typical street lamp; with staff also 92 deferring that question to the applicant. Mr. Lloyd clarified that there were light level 93 requirements in City Code applying to parking areas and minimum levels of illumination, 94 with 0.50 as the cut off, getting to the point of basic visibility without excess light. 95