pm_991208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Mulder reiterated the charge to look at S-C districts, but must also consider all other business districts for the impact on adjacent residential properties. Deal with outcomes. Determine whether goals are or can be met. Member Olson, in line 19, page 1, recommended striking the word "delivery" as too restrictive, and substitute language for irregular or seasonal work and add "significant regular business or outdoor activity. Member Mulder asked that line 39, page 1, be changed to "Plan Reviews" title. Member Egli asked for clarification of the 10% cube issue. Joel Jamnik noted the cube is defined as the entire structure. Member Rhody asked how to apply the 10% requirement cumulatively or individually. (Cumulatively by year 2000). On page 2 (line 14 to 18) regarding uses, clarify the definition of intensification. Member Olson suggested that the 24-hour use be defined by "outdoor activity" or the building itself. Member Cunningham described how difficult noise impacts are to administer. Member Rhody suggested noise metering by the shopping center property owners at the property boundary. Acceptable standards should be stated and measured by the property owner. This is more acceptable. Member Mulder argued that a "triggering event" is necessary because of grandfathering or "taking" issues. Member Wilke explained there could be disagreement by the adjoining operation. Member Egli asked how much more and over what period could the 10% change occur? Joel Jamnik to add the term "significant outdoor" Member Mulder asked to clarify opicity as year-round in Section 1006.02A2. Member Egli asked for detail regarding safety through the fence. Member Mulder asked whether these should be pedestrian access through fences for neighborhood access with consultation of neighbors. Phil Cohen found on page 3, lines 1-9, is new proposed language. Member Mulder asked for clarification of screening to include coniferous trees and combinations of fence, berm, landscaping, walls. Chair Klausing noted in Section 1 006.02E (traffic) - every "reasonable effort" is meant to provide some flexibility with pre- existing conditions. Chair Klausing asked why the one (1) ton capacity truck was used as a standard. The Commission consensus was that this should be redefined. Member Rhody asked that Section 1 006.02E should not specify vehicles, but traffic and then establish sound and light performance standards for residential areas within 300 feet. The issues are noise and light, not size of vehicle. Member Rhody asked how to set the standards for noise. Sound is the challenge. Member Wilke noted that it is difficult with performance standards to satisfy neighbors concerns. Joel Jamnik explained state noise standards. Member Mulder noted that screening is to occur only in areas less than 300 feet from residential districts. Member Cunningham asked for clarification in the language regarding the height of screening in 1006.02E, page 4, lines 11and12. Staff offered an amendment of 1006.02F. Member Cunningham asked for details regarding complaints about nighttime deliveries.