Laserfiche WebLink
- ~ Page 3 , <br />Minutes - Board of Revery <br />:..'September 21, 1976 <br />alike to see the Planning Commission add or. show the warrants <br />`for-the variance. <br />t~Tickland indicated that the sign was 'not damaged by decay but <br />was .damaged by vandals. TnTickland further i~tdieated that he <br />felt that. granting. the repairwork was good. Wickland further <br />noted that Council is~considerng changes in the cost of repair <br />section of the.sign ordinance. Wickland added that he felt <br />Bermel-Smaby ~+hould have'a-right to repair-the sign and also <br />felt that the five.-year. condition. was providingfair treatment. <br />Fredrickson indicated that she wondered whether this was. an <br />undue hardship.- Fredrickson added that the sign should be <br />.covered by insurance. <br />Mr. Carroll responded that he was unsure whether insurance <br />would c©ver the cost of repair. Mr. Carroll further noted <br />that the Bermel-Smaby property was very large s.r~d that this <br />was their only means of advertising. bar. Carroll further <br />• noted. 'that. the sign was needed for business. <br />Partyka noted that the applicants had the ideal opportunity to <br />bring the sign into conformance after the damage was done: <br />Partyka added that.: he could-see no undue hard"ship in this case. <br />Wickland added that while he went through this same type of <br />thinkirig,.he felt that the-five-year condition to bring the <br />sign into conformity was fair. <br />Vote on motion--6 ayes, 1 naye (Partyka)--Carried. <br />Partyka noted that his reason for voting against the motion. <br />was that he could see no undue hardship in the case. <br />2rlr. Da le; Lindberg, Manager of Bermel-Smaby, indicated that the <br />sign in a state of disrepair was very unattractive. Mr. Lind- <br />-berg .further noted that it was their intention to get the sign <br />to look better for both the City of New Brighton and also <br />Bermel-Smaby. <br />VN-163. Robert Dexter <br />The City Planner reviewed his comments noting that while the <br />variance appeared to be five feet, the exact variance necessary <br />was not known as,theapplcant has not f~:rnished a copy of a <br />certificate of survey. <br />