Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />,.t <br /> <br />Report #78-110 <br />May 3, 1978 <br /> <br />ew <br /> <br /> <br />Iri9hton <br /> <br />REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />,Application for Special Use Permit, <br />SP-79 <br />8:20 p.m. <br /> <br />PURPOSE <br /> <br />To consider applicCition for special use permit for signing of an <br />office building. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Applicant: Keith Harstad <br /> <br />Location: 2l9l-2l99 Silver Lake Road (SE corner of <br />Mississippi St. and Silver Lake Rd.)' <br />Zoning: B-l, Limited Business <br /> <br />Present Use,of Property: Office building-under constructio <br /> <br />Ordinance Requirements: Section 14-200 c(3) states that <br />buildings having multiple occupancies with both <br />individual and shared entrances shall be <br />regulated as in Section l4-l80, Areas of Special <br />Control. Section l4-l80essentially states that <br />signing for a matter should be developed as part <br />of an overall sign plan approved by a special <br />use permit. <br /> <br />The basic guidelines expressed in the sign ordinance are that <br />buildings such as this should be identified with a single ground <br />sign identifying the building only and that individual tenants <br />are permitted individual wall signs with name only. <br /> <br />By his attached letter the applicant is requesting that he be <br />allowed to have just the ground sign but that the sign contain <br />the names of the individual tenants rather than just identifying <br />the building. In compromise the applicant is proposing that <br />there be no wall signs on the building. In this proposal the <br />applicant has noted that wall signs would detract from the <br />residential character of the building. <br /> <br />Overall, the proposal appears to be very good. With the design <br />of the building, wall signs could make the building look clutter d <br />and unattractive. Just a single ground sign would permit,sound <br /> <br />Issued by City Manager <br />