pf_03329 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.0 ON-SITE INSPECTION 3.1 On August 27, Dennis Welsch met Bill Schorn on the site for a walk-through inspection. Mr. Schorn noted that fewer workers occupy the building this year (2002) than in the past. The lawn is maintained weekly by a professional service. Signage remains on the building and is unlighted. The building is in good repair both inside and outside. There appears to be little physical impact on the neighborhood. During the spring of2002 an older residential basket weave fence along the east property was damaged by snow plowing. The fence was repaired by the homeowner and Mr. Schorn paid a portion of the repair cost. 3.2 The City has received two types of comments from neighbors: 1) Fix the damaged fence and 2) maintain the front, side, and back yard. No comments or reports have been submitted by police, fire, or building inspection. 3.3 Mr. Schorn explained that he has two problems with the site and will seek help in correcting them. First, the trees and wild shrubs on the south side of his driveway, which are in the right-of-way, create a line of sight safety hazard for vehicles leaving his site. He will ask (or has asked) the County and/or the City to cut the trees/shrubs that are within the right-of-way creating the safety hazard. Second, he will investigate whether a ground mounted sign in the front lawn will create better and safer visibility for the Mortgage Company tenant, rather than the current wall mounted sign. (The !UP - Sub Section 10 allows for a monument or ground sign in the front yard, set back 15 feet from the front property line, and up to 75 s.f. in size, depending on what other signs remain on the building.) 3.4 Mr. Schorn also explained that at some time in the future he will seek a rezoning for the business. This will also require a comprehensive plan change. (Welsch explained that one reason for a five year interim use permit is to demonstrate that the "interim use" has little or no impact on surrounding properties and can be a compatible use. The interim use has only been in place for one year.) 4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 The staff finds that Kathleen Agness and Bill Schorn have complied with the terms of the IUP. No corrective action is necessary. The impact on the neighborhood appears to be negligible at this time. 4.2 Staff also suggests that the need for more permanent fence solution along the east side of the site. The !UP does not require new fencing, only maintenance of the existing fence. The existing fence belongs to the adjoining property owner, not Agness/Schorn and was installed to reduce the impact ofthe city approved Rymer Academy and parking more than 15 years ago. One possibility is the use of the City's "Borders and Buffers" program to install new fencing, estimated to cost $2,000 or less. Agness/Schorn IUP Review, PF 3329 RCA (101402) Page 4 - __IUI,U _ ....11