My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-154
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-154
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 5:08:21 PM
Creation date
2/22/2007 4:51:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VN-154 -3- <br />~' In regards to the warrants for the variance, attention is <br />directed to the applicants-statement pertaining to the :need ,of <br />`the signing... We would note that this particu lay case is similar` <br />to other developments in New Brighton where thee.-lots and homes are <br />knot readily visible from a major road. <br />he sign, as depicted on `the drawing, does not appear to be <br />particular y offensive. Of more concern is the proposed locatipn <br />for the sign. The setbacks as shown would be 10' from the Long <br />:Lake Road right-of-way and;25'::.from the`Poppyseed Drive right-of-way: <br />Ube would suggest that. if he variance is approved, that the sign <br />be located slightly further to the east. Thiswould eliminate <br />any possible obstruction at the .intersection.. <br />Planning `Commission Cons ideration - (~pr i l 20, 1976) <br />The City Planner reviewed his commentso <br />Marcel Ebensteiner, representing the applicant, was present to <br />answer•.questions. <br />Mr. Eibensteiner indicated that the identification sign was needed <br />to alert potential customers to the homes in the Brittany Beach <br />area. Mr. Eibensteiner noted that the Brittany Beach area is <br />somewhat hidden and many people are not aware of the locations <br />Harty. asked what type of construction sign would be allowed if <br />the sign were on the applicants property. <br />The City Planner noted that one unlighted sign may be displayed <br />for a residential project for the initial offering of ten. or more <br />new dwelling units for a .period of not to exceed two years. <br />It was also noted. that the size of the sign would have to be in <br />conformance :with the Table of Basic Design Elements,-except that <br />the area of the sign may be increased to 61 square feet so long <br />as it is situated no closer than 150 feet from the property <br />line of an occupied residence that is not part of the development. <br />Fredrickson indicated that a time limit for the sign may be desirable. <br />Motion by Partyke, seconded by Fredrickson, to recommend approval <br />of VN-154 sc~h the follawiag conditions s <br />1. That-the sign be erected and maintained for a period not. <br />to be exceeded 16 months; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.