SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

creating. Physical separation of such facilities from residences, therefore, would normally be desirable. While it might be preferable to have the Lodge building farther south on the property, it would be possible to design the structured so as to minimize any noise which is generated from within. This could be done by prohibiting openings on the North and West sides of the structure and, therefore, activity would be focused away from the northern residences, Staff Report: "activity would be focused away from the Northern residences" Design Review: The entrance to the building would be on the south side. There would be no windows in the other three elevations and the only other opening would be to emergency exits (one on the east side and the other on the north side). Because the building would be used for Lodge rituals, windows are not desired. Design review: "Placing the entrance on the south side of the building concentrates outdoor activities as far as possible from the bordering residences" Design review: "This is in conformance with the requirements of the conditional use permit" 2. On Page 5,staff states: "The commission [from the March 25, 2009 planning commission hearing] also requested that an acoustic study be initiated to evaluate noise impacts." Millers'response: (Previously communicated to staff in the Millers'June 22 hearing rebuttal) Staff fails to state that Condition#2 in the 2009 staff report required the Masons to perform a noise study,which the Masons subsequently refused to do. 3. On Page 5,staff states: "Staff contacted an acoustical consulting firm to conduct a noise study during an event at the Masonic Center.Over the course of one year, staff monitored the Masonic Center's event calendar, but did not identify a suitable event at which to conduct noise monitoring.Thus, no noise study was conducted." Millers' response: (This is the third time the Millers have corrected staff on this point.This was previously communicated to staff in the Millers'June 22 and Jan. 15 hearing rebuttals.) Once again, staff's statements are incorrect. The Millers were unaware that staff was conducting their own study after the Masons refused to do the noise study as required in Condition#2 of the 2009 hearing. (This is well documented in emails between Brian Dolan and the Millers.) Furthermore,there was a "suitable event at which to conduct noise monitoring," because the Millers submitted a noise code enforcement to the City staff during this time-period. 4. On Page 5,staff states: