pf_03177 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FROM LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY (MON) 12. 13'99 18:00/ST.17:57/NO.4861132814 P 6 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Joel Jamnik. Esq. December 13. 1999 Page 5 impractical and WlI"easonable result at some properties. For example, at Hac Mar, depending on the interpretation of these proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment..., this section could require construction of a wall in excess of 2000 lineal feet. . Sec:tion 1006.02(11) Maintenance Activities. The P]anning Commission version of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments reinserted the phrase "shopping carts" in the 29th line. There seems to be some confusion between collection of shopping carts and patron use of shopping carts during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. Bradley suggests that the staft:. modified version of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments that appeared in the staff report for the December 8 Planning Commission public hearing be substituted fOf this provision. It provided a separate section for addressing shopping carts for "twenty-four hour uses. " . Section 1006.02(1) Equipment Restric:tions. This section requires certain enumerated types of equipment within 300 feet of a residential area to be "completely screened to a point 5 feel above the first floor of adjacent residences." Other sections of the ordinance require screening to a point 14 feet above the ground at a particular location to a point 5 feet above the fIrst floor (main level) of adjacent residences. Should these provisions be consistent? . Section 1006.02(.1) Lighting. The second sentence of this section allows light poles or fixtures to be a maximum of 40 feet tall if they are more than 100 feet from a residential property line and if completely screened by building, berm, or landscape material with a minimum opacity of 90% to eye-level view of living spaces in homes within 300 feet of the light source. This language is more restrictive than the DSU Phase III report which allows (011 page 6) light poles or fixtures to be taller than 25 feet (with no maximum height limit) if more than 100 feet ftom residential property or if completely screened by a building, berm, or opaque screen to eye-level view of living spaces in homes within 300 feet of the light source. We suggested at the Planning COlmnission that this section of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments be consistent with the recommendation in the DSU Phase III Report. There was considerable discussion of this provision at the Planning Commission. Many Planning Commissioners favored establishing a standard to be achieved at the property line and allowing the property owner flexibility in the method for achieving this standard. Our notes show that the Planning Commission favored establishing a 50 foot maximum height for light poles. llris seems to us like a reasonable approach to adopt. In addition, under the current Zoning Ordinance Amendment draft, it is unclear whether a light pole less than 40 feet tall and more than 100 feet ftom a residential property line may be built without the complete screening to a 90% minimum opacity level. Sincerely, ~~~ Linda H. Fisher, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.