2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Callaghan stated that both he and his neighbor had similar noise issues; and when 149 he heard that they were planning a major remodel of the campus, he presumed that they 150 would need to do so under current City Code. If that was the case, Mr. Callaghan 151 questioned why the sound system was not required under a Conditional Use at this time, 152 and why it remained grandfathered in if the entire thing was being moved. 153 Mr. Callaghan noted the senior housing units across Lydia Avenue from the college, and 154 with removal of trees, it left no sound barrier between those memory care and nursing 155 home units and the college. Given the steep slope and topography of the area, Mr. 156 Callaghan opined that the trees were not nearly as tall as the proposed lights, and would 157 instead be way above his land and other adjacent properties. Mr. Callaghan advised that 158 the light levels shown have no meaning to him, and needed to be provided to him in foot 159 candles that he could understand. 160 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Callaghan responded that he had not had 161 problems with lighting on the fields in the past, as the fields were not currently provided 162 with lights in the current PUD. Mr. Callaghan opined that the new football stadium shown 163 in the PUD was not there before and represented a new and significant change. Mr. 164 Callaghan further noted that the addition of six new tennis courts on this site, which had 165 never been there before, was also a major change and opined that it was not consistent 166 with the PUD and didn’t look anything like the arrangement they’re proposing for the site. 167 Mr. Callaghan expressed confusion with the conditions proposed by staff. Since he and 168 other neighbors had experienced noise issues at least twenty times per year over the last 169 twenty-five years, and no one from the college had even called him attempting to seek 170 resolution, Mr. Callaghan opined that of all the neighbors coming and going during that 171 time period, Northwestern was the worst neighbor. 172 Mr. Callaghan further questioned if the City had done anything to-date to enforce its 173 current ordinances, or instead suggested that a false statement had been presented by 174 the City if staff was interpreting the code by not bringing up this proposal as a major 175 development. 176 Chair Gisselquist clarified that the noise issue was not the focus of tonight’s discussion. 177 Chair Gisselquist advised that staff could be asked to look into that issue if so desired by 178 Mr. Callaghan and audience members as indicated; however, the lights were the focus of 179 this discussion, and other issues should be handled by staff, not the Planning 180 Commission. 181 Mr. Callaghan responded that staff had not done so before. Mr. Callaghan asked 182 specifically if the lights would be off no matter what by 10:00 p.m. each night. Mr. 183 Callaghan advised that he suffered a stroke four years ago, and needed a sufficient 184 amount of sleep or he could not effectively work or function; and opined that his health 185 would be seriously affected if the lights were not off by 10:00 p.m. Mr. Callaghan noted 186 that part of staff’s analysis included health impacts; and alleged that his health would 187 certainly be affected if the lights were not off by 10:00 p.m.; and suggested that be 188 included as an additional condition. 189 At the request of Chair Gisselquist for clarification, Mr. Paschke advised that there were 190 no City Code requirements for lighting in this situation. 191 Mr. Callaghan noted that there had been significant discussions and conditions applied to 192 the Walmart development. 193 Mr. Paschke noted that the requirements of the Walmart development required 194 submission of the photogenic lighting proposal as displayed and indicating 10ths of a foot 195 candle. Mr. Paschke advised that there were minimum standards for parking lots, but not 196 standards for field lighting; and were based on common sense and review by staff 197 according to each specific proposal and use. While Mr. Paschke noted that Mr. Callaghan 198 may be able to see the lights from his property, the installation as proposed in the plan 199 would have no foot candle on his property and no light would spill off from the fields. 200