Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3085 <br /> February 22,2005 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> Jul Ann is proposiiig to use the existing sign across tlie sheet which is 2 x 7 or 14 s.f. to <br /> be displayed on the street side of the building. This brings the total amount of signage to <br /> be displayed on the street side of the building to 126 s.f. The applicant is also proposing <br /> to display a 1' x 4' sign on the back side of the building near the proposed entrance. This <br /> brings the total amount of signage to 130 s.f. where the Zoning Ordinance pertnits 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 Violations <br /> During a site inspection perforined on 2-11-OS is was noted that the area behind the <br /> buildiiig, within 250' of the lake, has accumulated various items of junk and debris. A <br /> review of the address files associated with this address reveals numerous notifications for <br /> removal of junk aiid debris dating back as far as 1995. The following items were <br /> observed during the 2-11-OS inspection: <br /> -truck or tractor tire <br /> -picnic table <br /> -numerous chairs <br /> -awning supported by metal posts <br /> -fitness equipment <br /> -scrap woodlpallets <br /> City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 require maiiitenance of private property and <br /> prohibition of storage of junk cars, furniture, appliances, and household furnishings on <br /> private property. As part of any commercial site plan approval the applicant and/or <br /> building owner will be required to remove these items from the property and comply with <br /> the above noted code sections. <br /> Lighting <br /> The applicant is not proposing any additional lighting. Existing on site, there appears to <br /> be one pole with a light and a light near the entrance to the new space. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Is a parking variance of 5 stalls reasonable? <br /> 2. Should a shared easement for access to the lower level be part of any approval? <br /> 3. Should compliance witli City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 be required as part of this <br /> application? <br /> 4. Does the potential firture developinent of this site impact this use negatively? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or coilcerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> If the Planning Commission f nds that parking and access requireiiients cannot be met <br /> then a motion for denial is recouunended. <br /> If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this pennitted use, then a parking variance <br /> should be granted, tlie applicant n�ust obtain a shared access agreeinent with the adjacent <br /> property owner and comply with Sections 58-1 and 58-3. <br />