PL MINUTES 11191985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-7- 1 Mr. Porter indicated further, that poor maintenance of the grounds, especially the 2 church' s failure to remove the leaves before they blew into his yard and less than 3 perfect snow removal also concerned him. He said he would have no objection if 4 the existing soft, but adequate lighting were retained in the back parking lot, 5 but warned that he would not tolerate bright spotlights . 6 7 Mr. Porter reported that after a discussion with Nativity's Pastor Hoffman. the 8 previous week, the practice of ringing the church bells 20 times every day at noon 9 and at 6:00 P.M. had stopped. However, he said he understood the church policy on 10 the bells was being reviewed and, Mr. Porter said, hoped the church would continue 11 to ring the bells for only church functions, and not for what he perceived had 12 been reasons -not directly related to normal church functions . Mr. Porter told the 13 Commissioners he had measured the sound of the bells and found, from his home, 14 they measured 97 decibels every time the bell was rung, which, Mr. Porter added, 15 would be unacceptable to OSHA on some job sites. The complainant said he was 16 prepared to go throughout the neighborhood with a petition against non-function 17 ringing of the bell , if the practice were resumed. 18 19 When asked by Commissioner Bjorklund whether he perceived a 10 inch pipe would 20 be better to prevent future flooding of his property, Mr-. Porter told the Com- 21 missioner he was not a hydraulic engineer, and couldn't say exactly what size of 22 pipe would be needed to keep the manhole from overflowing. He told Chair Franzese 23 he had never been flooded from the church property in his 30 years there, but 24 just wanted that eventuality considered during the planning stages, rather than 25 after his basement gets flooded, which might force him to sue the church for the 26 damages. 27 • 28 When Commissioner Rjorklund commented that the City wouldn't want to grant a 29 variance for a project which had the potential of harming his property, Mr. Carlson 30 responded by saying the church was not seeking -any variances for their expansion 31 plans. He told Mr. Porter he would anticipate no further flooding of the manhole 32 since the church had hired a company to flush it out and, in his own judgement, 33 the Building . Committee member said, the existing pipe should be large enough to 34 handle all the future storm water which flows through the parking lot. Mr. 35 Carlson also told Mr. McNulty he believed he could give the church' s assurance 36 that none of the neighbors ' properties would ever be harmed by snow dumped from 37 parking lot cleaning. 38 39 Mr. Erickson said landscaping had not been included in the construction contract 40 but that the church planned to do that work itself. Mr: Hensel said he understood 41 the church committee members who had talked to Mr. McNulty had agreed that a 42 barrier acceptable to him would be constructed by the church between his property 43 and the new parking lot:*and the Building Chairman assured him the' church .had the 44 money in the budget for a six foot fence, if that is what the neighbor wants . 45 Mr. Childs said a fence of that height would meet the ordinance requirements, but 46 the ordinance itself does not mandate such a buffer between the church and adjoin- 47 ing properties. The Commission, however, could make the fence one of the conditions 48 under which the permit is granted, he added. Mr. McNulty did not indicate he 49 wanted the church to do anything with the large overhanging silver maple tree on 50 the acquired property even though Commissioner Bjorklund had indicated that could 51 also be a condition for the permit. 52 • 53 Mr. Erickson indicated that the construction budget provided concrete curbing 54 wherever there was now concrete and the same with bituminous, but not all concrete 55 curbing. Mr. Hensel said the church had no problems with deterioration with the _ 56 curbs they have now.