My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_91Feb25
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
199x
>
1991
>
PCAgenda_91Feb25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2009 3:23:35 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 2:11:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~~ <br />• Page 3 <br />Complaint Basis Only <br />If done on a complaint basis only, it may be argued that retroactive conformance <br />will necessarily occur only in cases where an uncomfortable business/ <br />residential relationship exists. Complaints identify this discomfort. Clearly <br />this is a more manageable approach for the City, and may provide the desired <br />results. City Attorney Gedde explains that enforcement on a complaint basis <br />is done for reasons of practicality, and rarely, creates problems. However, <br />if possible, it is ideal to consistently and uniformly enforce the code <br />throughout the City (see Attachment 3). <br />Citywide Screening Code Enforcement Program <br />If done as a citywide screening code enforcement program, all businesses in the <br />city are potentially affected. It requires reviewing all properties, for their <br />compliance with acceptable screening practices, contacting the property owners <br />and working out the most reasonable screening solution for each individual site. <br />Some properties may be unable to be screened due to the location of the buildings <br />on the site. In these cases, the constraints must be clearly recorded or it <br />reduces the claim that this is an equitable code enforcement program. <br />• Factors to Consider <br />As in any policy decision, there are many constraints in making these decisions. <br />These include: <br />1. Existing fencing. Is existing fencing, like chain link acceptable <br />even if it doesn't act as a screen? Or must these property owners <br />replace the fencing with something that acts as a visual barrier. <br />If acceptable now, is it acceptable for proposed screening? <br />2. Existing screening. If the adjoining residential properties have <br />created rear and side yard screens through landscaping or fencing, <br />do these fulfill the code requirement even if the business did not <br />provide them? <br />3. Aesthetics. The most efficient, least expensive screening is <br />usually fencing. Therefore, it is important to decide if fencing <br />is an adequate solution to the screening requirement. Frequently six <br />foot high wood privacy fences are constructed as screening. These <br />are designed to take on an aged, weathered look. In landscaped <br />residential properties this aging often complements an existing deck, <br />garden, trees and lawn. However, in a commercial area, the presence <br />of a tall cedar fence in a heavily brick, stucco, concrete and asphalt <br />~ environment may look out of place. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.