Laserfiche WebLink
WS-3085 <br />February 22.2005 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />Jul Ann is proposing to use the existing sign across the street which is 2 x 7 or 14 s.f. to <br />be displayed on the street side oftlie building. This brings the total amount of signage to <br />be displayed on the street side of the building to 126 s.f. Tlie applicant is also proposing <br />to di.splay a I’ x 4 ’ sign on the back side of the building near the proposed entrance. Ibis <br />brings the total amount of signage to 130 s.f. where the Zoning Ordinance permits 185 <br />s.f based on the street frontage of the lot. Staff finds this to be acceptable, however the <br />sign must be located below the roof line in order to comply with all aspects of the sign <br />code. <br />Zoning Violation.*! <br />During a site inspection performed on 2-11-05 is was noted that the area behind the <br />building, within 250 ’ of the lake, has accumulated various items of junk and debris. A <br />review of the addre.ss files a.s.sociatcd with this address reveals numerous notifications for <br />removal of junk and debris dating back as far as 1995. The following items were <br />ob.scrved during the 2-11 -05 inspection: <br />-truck or tractor tire <br />-picnic table <br />•numerous chairs <br />-awning supported by metal posts <br />-fitness equipment <br />-.scrap wood/pallcis <br />City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 require maintenance of private property and <br />prohibition of storage of junk cars, furniture, appliances, and household furnishings on <br />private property. As pait of any commercial site plan approval t!ie applicant and/or <br />building owner will be required to remove thc.se items from the property and ciimply with <br />the above noted code sections. <br />lighting <br />The applicant is not proposing any additional lighting, lixisiing on site, there appears to <br />be one pole with a light amt a tight near the entrance to the new space. <br />h.sue.«i for Con.niticralioii <br />!. Isa parking variance of 5 stalls reasonable? <br />2. .Should a shared easement for aceess to the lower level be part of any approval? <br />3. Should compliance with City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 be required as p.u t of this <br />application? <br />4. Docs the potential future development of this site impact this use negatively? <br />5. Are there any other issues cu concerns with this application? <br />Staff Kvcoiiinivndalioii <br />If the IManning ('ommission lltids that parking and acee.ss requirements cannot he met <br />then a motion for denial is recommended. <br />If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this permitted use, then a parking variance <br />.should he granted, the applicant must obtain a shared acee.ss agreement with the adjacent <br />property owner and comply witli Sections 58-1 and 58-3.