VN-154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w VN=154 -4- -• 2. .That thesign be setback from. Long Lake Roada distance of 25 feet or greater. sr?ickland suggested that the motion should be defeated because there are similar circumstances .for other builders in New Brighton. ~°?ickland indicated that if this request were granted, they would- be obliged to approve all similar-request. I :Harty indicated that there appeared to be~no`real hardship because the`'land between the Brittany.Beach area and the proposed sign ,location was vacant, and .further. that a 'larger sign could be erected' on the Brittany Beach property. Mr. Eibenstener explained that there mere tov~~nhouses built which -block the view of the Brittany .Beach homeso Motion carried, 4-1 (fin?ickland) . ',Couniclman Hardt asked those who voted to recommend approval if they would like to list some of the hardships or practical ;difficulties so that the Council would have same basis for making 'a decisions Brown indicated that a sign placed east of the townhouses and on the ;Brittany Beach area would cause a nuisance to the townhouses. Brown also mentioned that the only homes in the vicinity of the !proposed sign location are west of Long Lake Road. Fredrickson indicated that she definitely felt the applicant had a problem in trying to sell their homes. Fredrickson also indicated that the situation is unique in that there are places left to be developed yet in New Brighton. It was further noted that the lay out of the streets in the area has caused a problem. ~ Wickland noted that his real concern was that if this situation was to be applicable to all developers, then perhaps the solution would be a sign ordinance amendment rather than a variance. It wa s also noted that there are several small parcels in similar situations throughout the City. Partyka mentioned that this sign may be of a benef it in that it would help to develop the area faster thereby eliminating the construction aspect of the site.