pm_991208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3. All properties in SC zones are existing, making it difficult to comply; 4. Many commercial users have same impacts on residences, but only those in SC are regulated; 5. The "trigger" will be difficult to administer; 6. How will staff record delivery hours and permits; 7. Defining the terms is necessary; 8. What standards do apply to 24-hour uses - segregate the text; 9. On November 8th, in staff report, city staff noted that impacts on existing uses would be minimal, but creating non- conformities creates problems for all; 10. Existing deliveries are for one hour late night may be a problem to regulate; 11. Traffic - service vehicles over one ton driving or delivering between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. is regulated. It is impossible to not find a 300-foot setback on the site. Is it the intent to mandate on east, west and south, a wall? A flexible screening technique of combining walls, berms, landscaping would help. 12. The 90% opacity is questionable; 13. The loading - does it prohibit backing - there is not enough room at Har Mar to accomplish this. 14. Prohibiting backing is restrictive; 15. Maintenance issues must be defined; 16. Removal of temporary snow storage needs to be clarified. During 6 to 8 snowstorms, there is a need to plow in the evening to avoid pedestrian and/or traffic. Permanent snow storage and removal is okay; 17. Lighting, especially commercial signage, is a problem. Har Mar signage is lighted now. Light poles and height restrictions are too strict, not adaptable. Screening of poles over 25 feet is a problem. Ms. Fisher noted that her clients did not receive the draft ordinance until Friday (December 4, 1999). More flexibility is advisable. Chair Klausing asked for additional comments from the developer. Tim Prinsen, Bradley Real Estate, stated that in May, 1999, report was submitted to the city. Sandra Weber, 1440 W. Eldridge, noted that this proposal impacts all shopping areas, not one. She expressed concerns regarding noise from shopping centers (snow and garbage). J.O. Thompson, 2008 Asbury, expressed concern about Bradley lawsuit, Har Mar expansion and impacts eroded value in residential area on three sides through over-development. He supports the proposed ordinance. Bob Verina, 1455 W. Shryer, asked if Har Mar was a unique situation, bordered by housing, with only two 24-hour uses (Rainbow). The snow removal continues through the night. There being no further comments, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Member Mulder asked whether the ordinance allows for clearing snow at any time during 24 hours, but only remove temporary piles from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.. Chair Klausing expressed concern about ambiguities and setbacks. Member Olson noted concerns that the ordinance deals with existing businesses - how many businesses would become non-conforming. Member Mulder suggested reviewing the ordinance from the beginning to resolve language, starting in Section 1 to provide direction. Member Wilke explained that the ordinance is too late; 24-hour use and setbacks have problems. There are different situations at each center. Member Egli asked for more input from shopping center developers. There are questions regarding non-conformities. Member Mulder noted in Section 1 the words "or other activity", line 19, page 1, creates problems. How will these odd hour administration be done? Phil Carlson recommended the term "significant, regular business or outdoor activity" would be a good substitute. Member Rhody stated the ordinance is proscriptive and an administrative nightmare. Set standards as per charts from DSU. Give a flexible palette of solutions which agree with the general intent of the ordinance.