pm_991208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Phase II of the study included four (4) neighborhood meetings. The bulk 0 the comments came from residents adjacent to the Har Mar Center. He described comments received from the meetings (summarized in Phase II Report). Phase III summarized research from Phase I study to the issues identified by property owners in Phase II. Phil Carlson reviewed assumptions and findings from the study. He defined nighttime uses (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and methods of mitigating the impacts. Member Mulder asked if light deflectors and downcast fixtures could be used instead of distance separation. Phil Carlson noted that the current standard is % of foot-candle at the property line. Member Mulder encouraged flexibility. Member Mulder asked for clarification regarding backing of trucks. Phil Carlson explained the drive-through loading dock facility. Member Mulder noted that the width and length of drive-through facilities may be difficult to fit into an existing mall. This drive-through provision would apply only within a 24-hour service area and within 300 feet of the residential areas. Joel Jamnik, City Attorney explained the proposed code. He explained the proposed process of review, recommending that the effective date be January 1, 2000. The definition and interpretation of when 24-hour uses and restrictions apply was described. He noted Design Standards of Section 1010 still apply. Member Rhody noted that size and hours of operation are triggers to development; what impact will occur to existing centers? Joel Jamnik noted, page 2, lines 14-15, note that a change of use to 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. would be required. Member Rhody asked when change impacts an entire shopping center or simply a minor improvement. It is unclear at this time whether a change in one store would require complete retrofit of the shopping center. Member Mulder asked if deliveries after 10:00 p.m. would be defined as a 24-hour service. Businesses that close prior to 10:00 p.m., but which requires late night deliveries, would not be considered 24=hour service. Member Mulder asked for language that reduces the ambiguity in the definition of 24-hour service. Phil Carlson noted hours of operation might be problematic, especially if the expansion is small. Hours of operation should have some sliding scale flexibility. Member Mulder asked why all uses couldn't be required to comply with the Code - even retroactively. Applying retroactively may create a "taking". Chair Klausing asked if an empirical study or standards could be used to assure a solution to the problem. As currently written, the burden of proof May be on the homeowners. Phil Carlson noted that common experience and past history of relief from the problem form the basis of the study findings. Member Cunningham asked how this ordinance would affect occasional midnight or early morning sales. Could a merchant do this once every six months or intermittent uses? Member Rhody asked for clarification regarding snow removal from the centers. Phil Carlson noted most information came from neighbors/residences and experiences from other cities. Member Rhody asked if a one ton truck or van was the limit on size and number, and how would this be administered. Member Olson asked for clarification of the definition - must the building or the activity be less than 300 feet from residences. Phil Carlson explained that any activity or building within 300 feet would be subjected to the requirements of the proposed ordinance. Phil Carlson asked for clarification of the five-foot height within the residence - could it be higher? Average eye height is approximately five feet above floor level plus two feet above grade. Warren Schie, 1383 W. Ryan, asked if opacity was to be required year round. Joe Jamnik noted that opacity in the proposal is to be year-round. Mr. Schie asked if there was a way to control shopping carts. (Staff had recommended mandatory shopping cart collection). Phil Carlson explained the access issues which restricts opening sizes.