To: Deputy Planner Student
From: Planning Manager Jared
RE: MT 2016 Project
We have a problem. Last week, an applicant, Annie, submitted an application for “a sign change out”. That planning Intern from Southern University College, Clark who we fired Friday, issued an over-the-counter permit on his last day here.
Some background facts: Annie inherited a house on Main Street from her grandmother, Granny. The structure was built in 1905 as a one-story residential home. At the time, the area was zoned residential. In 1950, the area was rezoned to DT, or downtown commercial, which allowed only commercial uses; that zoning still applies today. The house was used as a residence until 1963 when the property was turned into “Granny’s Griddle”, a restaurant known for the best breakfasts in town. Granny’s had a neon sign in the front yard that blinked “Granny’s Griddle – eat at – Granny’s Griddle”. A CUP was issued in 1963 by the Planning Commission that only states, “One neon sign allowed for Granny’s Griddle.” Granny’s Griddle shut down in 2004 and the sign was shut off at that time. Granny died in 2010. It is unclear if Granny lived in the house between 1963 and 2010. No one has lived there since. The zoning applicable to the site would allow an auto mechanic, retail store, or a restaurant, but residential uses are now not allowed.
Clark’s over-the-counter permit states “sign change OK’d”. The permit issued by Clark last week was to change the sign from “Granny’s Griddle” to “Garry’s Garage”. There is a Garry’s Auto Garage a block away. The details are not clear if the concept is to paint the sign to read “1 Block to Garry’s Garage”, change the neon to blink “Garry’s Garage—go to—Garry’s Garage”, or if Garry’s Garage will be moving to Granny’s/Annie’s property, the location of the sign. The City never liked the sign and would like it taken down.
The other problem is that Annie just submitted an application for “remodel/occupancy”. Clark did not note anywhere in the case file anything about this so I am treating this as a new application. Annie left a phone message that said the downtown is not as active as it was in the 1960’s she would like to remodel the building. It was unclear from her message and application if she intends to remodel it to live there, to restart the restaurant, or some other use. It is also unclear if the remodel will involve adding square footage or structural alterations.
No need to analyze historical value to the structure/sign. Likewise, I’ve done the CEQA analysis and determined it is exempt under the Small Structures exemption so don’t worry about CEQA.
I am planning on calling Annie next week so I need your response– double spaced, 12 pt font– sent to my email inbox by 6pm on October 26, 2016, or handed to me in print form at that same time and date.
A. For the permit Clark issued, what issues to you see?
a. Please identify (describe) as many issues as you can see about the permit Clark approved. This should be a list of legal issues (a few words for each issue: e.g., pre-empted by state law, etc.)
b. For ONE issue regarding the permit Clark approved, please show me an IRAC outline of the issue.
c. For THAT SAME ISSUE you do the IRAC analysis on in b. above, provide a written answer 1- 2 pages in length using the IRAC method.
B. As for the remodel of the building, analyze the following (An answer of 2 pages total covering a&b below should be OK. Write in IRAC style; I do not need to see your outline for these):
a. Discuss the issues involved if Annie wants to add square footage or makes structural alterations in order to live there.
b. Discuss the issues if she adds square footage or makes structural Alterations in restarting the restaurant.