Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />13 March 1991 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2197 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />George C. Brandt, Inc. <br /> <br />LOCATION: <br /> <br />2975 Long Lake Road (see <br />sketch) <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />variance <br />Ordinance <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />Zoning <br /> <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br /> <br />1. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />This is an application for an "after the fact" variance to <br />approve the location where the applicants have already <br />installed their sign. Since an accurate site plan has not <br />been submitted, it is impossible to measure exactly how <br />much of a variance is required to approve this sign. <br /> <br />There are three copies of correspondence for your review. <br />The first is a letter from the applicant, J.C. Brandt, <br />dated November 28, 1990. This letter was submitted along <br />with the application for a variance. A picture was <br />submitted along with this letter and a copy of that <br />picture is also included for your review. <br /> <br />The next letter is from Rick Jopke to Mr. Brandt dated <br />January 7, 1991. In this letter Rick identifies the <br />information that will be needed to complete the <br />application. These three items include the certified list <br />of surrounding property owners, an accurate site plan <br />showing the exact location of the sign, and information to <br />both explain the hardship that justifies this variance and <br />supports the location that was selected. <br /> <br />The third letter is Mr. Brandt's response to Rick Jopke's <br />letter. This letter dated January 23, 1991, transmits the <br />list of surrounding property owners along with the <br />required mailing labels. It does not, however, transmit <br />any site plan or any additional information in support of <br />the variance. He states that no site plan is available <br />(and is implicit in his response that he chooses not to <br />make one available). He also states that his previous <br />letter and the photograph are sufficient justification for <br />the variance. <br />