Plan Commission denies EHS permit

Following is the Transcript of the May 11 Plan Commissi0n decision

COMMISSIONER CANTRELL: Thank you Madame Chair. I am going to recommend that the Planning Commission cannot find the conditional use permit Standard No. 3 met, which is the use and values and enjoyment of the property of the neighborhood for purposes already established will not be substantially impaired or diminished in any foreseeable manner and that this item be placed on file without prejudice. I think that the proposal for the lights will have a substantial impact on the existing —

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Can we get a second and then I’ll come back to you to speak to your motion?  Seconded by Mr. Hagenow? Yes. Ok.

MR. HAGENOW: Yes. I second.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Commissioner Cantrell, to speak to your motion.

COMMISSIONER CANTRELL: I think that the establishment of lights on the field will have a substantial impact on the adjoining residents. The applicant hasn’t provided sufficient evidence that it will not impact the neighbors and also by allowing the lights it allows the use of the field at night which will provide noise impacts which again will impact — negatively impact the neighbors. There has been no mitigation of the impacts of the light or the noise by providing additional screening by walls or anything like that which the applicant could have proposed. I guess I’m troubled; I’m always looking for a win-win and a compromise between the neighborhood and the applicant but in this case there’s no win-win and there’s no opportunity for win-win except for denial and let the applicant go back and hopefully go back and discuss their proposal with the neighborhood and I understand that you know some of the people in the neighborhood don’t want anything but I think that there are some reasonable people in the neighborhood and I think that hope for discussion should occur.

In addition, I agree with Alder Rummel. We haven’t seen the entire impact of all the games that are going to be occurring during the day on the field. And I think that we need to have at least some idea what those impacts will be so we can proceed on this application in the future if it comes back to us. But that’s the reason why I’m recommending that this application be placed on file.

Edgewood High School is appealing THIS decision at the September 15th Common Council meeting. Contact the Common Council today and ask them to vote NO!

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr. Cantrell. Alder Rummel.

 ALDER RUMMEL: No.

 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: No. Ok. Any discussion, comment observations? Alder Rummel.

 ALDER RUMMEL: I put my hand up to second in before, but then I thought, I can talk.

 MADAME CHAIRPERSON: All right

 ALDER RUMMEL: I think it’s at 100% support not moving forward. The more I think about how it — not only does it not meet Standard No. 3, I don’t even think it meets the orderly development of their own right to have the field so how do we know how to get to something that’s conditioned. And when I start to think like that I just don’t think the evidence is there that shows that this won’t impair the public health and safety or uses and values or the normal development of those three. I mean I would personally think all three are not met but I’ll be satisfied with one. I think the screening clearly could have been done. I love trees and all but they don’t stop noise and I think if the — I mean I heard the Alder say that they should go find another location that they are really dead set on doing some thing there.

 They need to build walls. They need to have sound mitigation. They need to do some kind of structure that — I mean at least propose it — not do it. But propose it and work with the neighborhood so I hope that they can make another effort to mend, to repair the damage in the neighborhood because I think it’s really important. People want to have a good relationship but — so please keep working out at it everyone. Thank you for your time and I did appreciate all the neighbors who have their Zoom personas and also their families. It was very lovely. Thank you. I enjoyed that

 MADAME CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Alder. Commissioner Sundquist.

 COMMISSIONER SUNDQUIST: I am a neighbor as I mentioned before. It doesn’t give me any special insight into what the right decision is here. It’s a judgment call. I started out to thinking I was going to support something like what staff was recommending. Maybe hear some additional reigning in of the numbers and so forth, and I still think we might be able to get there, but I am now I am inclined to support Mr. Cantrell’s motion so I guess by the time we vote I’ll decide. I would just throw out a couple bits. Should that go through I do think that there are people in the neighborhood with whom Edgewood could have a good conversation and try to come up with—if not a win-win, some sort of accommodation that is you know better than what we’ve got now. I have I attended a little party on our end of Keyes before COVID and everybody on the street was either OK with it or outright in favor. So there are people in the neighborhood of different views and I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that we can’t have any impact in our neighborhood. It has to be zero nil. I mean we have our own self-inflicted leaf blowers and lawn mowers and stuff like that that are louder than what decibel levels that people have been citing here. Some people will want zero-impact and I think that there are enough people in the neighborhood that if you, if Edgewood engaged in, would go back at it one more time, redid this liaison committee, whatever format it takes, gave it another try, would might be able to get it, no pun intended, over the goal line so that’s my musing and I will listen to what everybody else might have to say.

 MADAME CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Commissioner Sundquist. Alder Lemmer.

 ALDER LEMMER: Thanks to you. I am still processing and trying to figure out where I’m at. But I was also thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Sundquist that it was disappointing that there wasn’t any substantial or any real neighborhood engagement before this came to us and there would be an opportunity for that and they would talk though some sort of compromise and you know some limit that makes sense on the number of games or maybe – you know, a very strict limit for the first year and then you know increasing it for you know there was that 25 number that was supposed to have been promised in that January 7, 2019 correspondence for the eight Friday night football games and 17 other athletic competitions and based on something like that to start with and then increasing the number, that plus, having some neighborhood engagement. Those are the things that I was thinking to that would make me support some kind of approval so and still I’m still thinking. I just wanted to share a few of the things that were coming to mind and what I was leaning towards. Thank you.

 MADAME CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Alder Lemmer. Commissioner Solheim.

 COMMISSIONER SOLHEIM: Thank you. I also live in this neighborhood, just to point out that when it came out several years ago, I was initially supportive of the idea. I live very close to Camp Randall and kind of embrace that atmosphere. But the frequency and timing of this is a lot different than that as has been pointed out. And I was hoping coming into this meeting that there would be definitely more of a spirit of compromise given especially the length of time that this has been going on. I was open to the idea of having a limit to the number of games but it seems like there has been no movement on that whatsoever and you know I think it’s clear in the standards for conditional use where it’s talking about substantial impairment and also the statement of purpose in the district talking about minimizing the adverse impacts you know both sides of that have clear language that there’s a compromise in there. It’s not no impacts, no impairment. There’s room for it, but both sides would have to work together. So I would encourage them please to continue doing so and come back.

 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Alder Sundquist. Alder Heck.

 ALDER HECK: Thanks to you. I think everybody has had something sensible to say about this. All the commissioners and I generally agree about what everybody has to say. I think it comes down to what Commissioner Cantrell and Alder Rummel had to say. It just struggles to meet particularly Standard 3. And I do hope that somehow some kind of agreement can be worked out in the future between all parties but I’ll be supporting the motion primarily because of Standard No. 3. Thanks.

 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Alder. Any other comments before we come to Vote? Seeing none I will be assuming unanimous consent unless I see a raised hand to object. Seeing none. Motion passes. Thank you.

The video and transcript are abridged from the full 7+ -hour video. You can watch the video in its entirety here.