2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 6 through the City Attorney that it required a Conditional Use, staff would then respond 253 accordingly. However, Mr. Paschke further noted that the standard threshold for noise 254 was quite high and was governed by State Statute and other agencies beyond the City 255 that set that bar quite high. Regarding Mr. Callaghan’s allegations that he has 256 communicated with staff but his concerned have not been heard, addressed or resolved, 257 Mr. Paschke advised that he could not respond at this time without further research. 258 Mr. Callaghan responded that the thresholds established by the State said that the level 259 was 60 decibels, the level at which this discussion was at. 260 Mr. Paschke responded that the noise level on the field versus at Mr. Callaghan’s house 261 was much different. 262 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke clarified that to his knowledge, the 263 college would not be required as part of the appeal process to provide documentation 264 that they have met noise threshold standards. 265 Member Boguszewski advised that his intent in making sure that process was known was 266 based on Mr. Callaghan’s opinion that his concerns had not received a fair and adequate 267 hearing. Mr. Boguszewski concurred with Chair Gisselquist that, since the sound system 268 could be addressed through that alternative avenue and as a separate issue, testifiers 269 focus their comment only on the light issue as previously directed. 270 Mr. Callaghan questioned if that meant the Commission was going to consider lighting 271 and not sound; and would that mean the college would be told to leave the sound off. 272 Since the sound system was changing, Mr. Callaghan expressed confusion as to how 273 that could be, since they’d never had lights on the field and only played day games. 274 Chair Gisselquist reiterated that tonight’s discussion was focused on the lights, with the 275 process presented by Member Boguszewski and staff on how citizens could follow-up 276 with the sound issue. 277 Member Daire noted that Mr. Callaghan’s concern was also found in 8.0 of the staff 278 report “Suggested Action” indicating that it appeared that field lighting and the public 279 address system were being requested under the Conditional Use; and sought clarification 280 if the intent was actually to separate them. 281 Chair Gisselquist clarified that he was basing his comments on staff’s review and 282 presentation that the Conditional Use was only addressing lighting. 283 Member Murphy concurred, noting that Section 7.0(b) in the staff report clarified that the 284 proposed outdoor athletic fields and field lighting were not in conflict with the 2007 PUF 285 regulating campus development. 286 Chair Gisselquist concurred, stating that he stood corrected. 287 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd addressed apparent incongruence’s in 288 the staff report, advising that Section 4.2 specifically addressed the height of the lighting 289 pole and current exemption of the existing public address system and potential 290 replacement of such as a grandfathered item. Mr. Lloyd noted that the introductory 291 paragraphs may indicate that the public address system was identified in City Code as a 292 Conditional Use, in Section 4.2 it stated that it exists and a modification of it does not 293 remove it from that grandfathered status; with a recommended condition that clarifies 294 that, as long as we’re talking about lighting, we can make it a condition to ensure it 295 coordinates with the intent of the field’s speaker system when not in use. 296 Member Boguszewski noted that Mr. Lloyd’s statement got to the heart of his suggestion 297 to ensure there was an alternate process for citizens; since staff had determined that the 298 portion of the application having to do with the speaker system was grandfathered in and 299 the proposal by Northwestern didn’t require it to be called out separately. Since tonight’s 300 action is only focused on lighting with staff having determined that the sound system did 301 not apply, Member Boguszewski advised that if Mr. Callaghan wanted to suggest an 302 additional Conditional Use and at what point the speaker system may trigger it as an 303