2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 5 Chair Gisselquist concurred, noting that the way the lighting had been laid out and limited 201 foot candle allowances further out, it appeared to address the issue well. 202 Mr. Callaghan opined that it was then no different than the building constructed on the 203 campus years ago that now cast a shadow on his living room. 204 Mr. Paschke clarified that there was no rule that a building couldn’t cast a shadow in a 205 back yard. 206 With reference to the area photograph currently displayed, Member Daire questioned 207 which building was casting the shadow, with Mr. Callaghan pointed out the building with 208 the red roof. 209 Mr. Hill noted that the building was two-stories tall. 210 Chair Gisselquist summarized the points brought forward by Mr. Callaghan; noting that 211 the college and staff would be cognizant of those points of concern in their ongoing 212 process for this project. However, Chair Gisselquist clarified that it was not the role of the 213 Planning Commission, a group of community volunteers, to arbitrate neighborhood 214 disputes; assuring Mr. Callaghan that his concerns had been heard and were part of the 215 public record from tonight’s hearing. Chair Gisselquist personally opined that he felt the 216 college had taken many steps to minimize lighting for the surrounding community; and 217 even though the sound issue was not before the body tonight, he was hopeful that by 218 reorienting the public address system and other fields, they were making a good faith 219 effort to address both noise and lighting concerns. 220 Regarding light impact, as directed by the Chair, Member Daire asked if Mr. Callaghan 221 was able to see the light did that mean to him that it was at a higher level than he wanted 222 to tolerate. 223 Mr. Callaghan responded that he had purchased his home without a dark back yard, and 224 doubted that light poles raised 79’ – 90’ would not have a significant impact on his 225 property and quality of life. With Member Daire clarifying that the maximum height 226 indicated 80’, Mr. Callaghan opined that they would still be taller than the trees; and he 227 couldn’t see how they could possibly be blocked between the trees and his house. At the 228 request of Member Daire as to what would satisfy Mr. Callaghan other than if he could 229 see no lights whatsoever from the college, Mr. Callaghan clarified that a 0.50 foot candle 230 would satisfy him. 231 Chair Gisselquist noted that the sample photo from St. Thomas indicated an effort to 232 direct lights onto the field and not beyond. 233 In referencing the photometric map, Member Boguszewski reviewed the apparent 234 projections that could impact Mr. Callaghan’s property; and questioned whether if one 235 property owner was affected in the entire city by something on a neighboring property, 236 was it appropriate to apply a Conditional Use on that particular action to mandate that it 237 occur or if it was appropriate with certain circumstances making it right and property or a 238 Conditional Use. If he, as a property owner felt a Conditional Use should apply, but staff 239 determined that it was not needed for that action, Member Boguszewski asked if there 240 was a process for a citizen to appeal staff’s decision and create discussion with a broader 241 body (e.g. City Council). In this particular case, whatever the actual history, at some point 242 staff determined that the sound system, adjunct of the lighting question, did not require a 243 Conditional Use; so Member Boguszewski questioned if a citizen had a means of redress 244 to take it a step further and open it up for further investigation. 245 Mr. Paschke responded that, in this particular instance, a citizen could appeal in writing to 246 the City Manager and seek a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether a 247 Conditional Use was required for replacing a pre-existing system; keeping in mind that 248 the City was bound by State Statute as well as City Code specific to non-conforming 249 things they could require to be replaced. It the field is being changed and the system 250 being updated to a new one which was intended to be fashioned to be less impactful than 251 the current one for the neighbors on the west, but it was determined by the City Manager 252