Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Member Wilson asked if it was a concrete base. Bittner stated <br /> she was unsure of the construction,but the sign company would use best management <br /> practices since the flags are not supposed to blow down in a wind. Vice-Chair Birch <br /> stated with regard to the Variance request, the base construction is not part of the <br /> request. Mr. Burslie stated they are temporary in nature, so there likely will not be a <br /> large concrete base. <br /> Vice-Chair Birch was concerned precedent would be set by approving a Variance for a <br /> real estate sign. Most real estate agents would want a larger sign. He would be more <br /> comfortable if these were not considered real estate signs; these are community <br /> development project signs. This is a community development project along the highway <br /> and should not tie in the real estate sign portion at all. Mr. Burslie stated if the Planning <br /> Commission feels the same way, we could say these are not real estate signs. He asked <br /> Bittner to confirm what the flags say; Bittner read the 6 signs which Mr. Burslie stated <br /> are marketing the site. Vice-Chair concurred that they are real estate signs. <br /> Mr. Burslie stated to keep in mind regarding precedent, every property is unique and <br /> unless the request is for the same property, for the exact same request, there is no <br /> precedence set. <br /> Planning Commission Member Paulbeck stated to support this request,we cannot guess <br /> what a realtor might want to do with a bigger sign. This could be great for our <br /> community. Vice-Chair Birch stated he does want to see this done, but wants to be sure <br /> we aren't setting ourselves up in the future for some type of failure. <br /> Vice-Chair Birch stated there is no timeline listed, other than when the lots are sold, and <br /> that could be forever. Is there a problem with putting 3 years on this? Mr. Burslie <br /> stated that is what is unique about this request. The request is temporary and the <br /> Planning Commission could add a condition regarding this. We don't know how long it <br /> will take for the lots to sell. At an EDC meeting, someone stated it could take 2o years <br /> before these lots are sold and developed. Keep in mind it is City owned property and the <br /> City is going to do what is best for the City and their property. Mr. Burslie <br /> recommended not including a timeline for removal,but that would be up to the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> Planning Commission Member Larson had a question regarding the property being <br /> vacant and should lots be sold, would the signs be moved to another location. Mr. <br /> Burslie stated Condition #4 covers this: The temporary signage may be placed in any <br /> location owned by the applicant so long as the standard signage setbacks are met. <br /> Planning Commission Member Wilson asked who is responsible for the maintenance <br /> and installation of the flags. Bittner stated the Public Works Department will be <br /> responsible for maintenance and the flag company would be responsible for installation. <br /> MINUTES 2 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> July i8, 2oi9 <br />