04-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I II i! 'I I j, II RES~LUTlON MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ApPROVING VN 04-02. WHJ~AS' an application for a variance has been made by Mr. Brian Houwman to add a 5,970 square foot II addition to the existing Becker Brothers Floors facility located at 525 1 st Street NW, which will i, require a front yard parking setback variance; and 11 Ii wmllmAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: I~. An application for a special use permit was filed with the City of New Brighton on July 2, 2004. i. The Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on July ! 20, 2004, and all present were given a chance to freely speak at the hearing; I~. The City Council heard the request and approved the variance application; and, p ,I No~ITHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN 04-0~: 11. The subject site is zoned I-I, Light Industrial. 11,2. The front yard setback for parking lots in the I-I district is 40 feet. \,3. The applicant is requesting a varian~e to construct a parking lot which will encroach into the front I yard setback by 40 feet on the east Side. 114. According to the Zoning Code, the land use requires 60 spaces; submitted plans show a total of 49 I, spaces. 115. The applicant is requesting a variance for 11 parking stalls. 116. Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict 1; letter of the provisions of the City of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, the Council shall have the :1 power, in a specific case, to permit a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. The crucial L points of the variance are: II !! Ii " n I: " II !i ~ 'i 11:: il il II. ,/ RESOLUTION No. 0 4: - 0 6 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON Undue hardship b. Unique circumstances Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan d. Variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole. a. c. !j :1 1~ The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property in question and was not created by the applicant. The requested variance conforms to the comprehensive plan and would not be detrimental to adjacent property owners or the public as a whole. On July 20, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and all present were given a chance to be heard. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the parking lot setback variance and the 11 parking stall variance to the City CoucH. The Council ftnds that all Variance criteria are met. i * ,; I.' ;j 9' t ~p. H ;j ~a. !I Ii Ii t, 1:\CotcIL\RESOLUTIONS\2004\COmmunity Development\VN04-02_525 1st Street SW.doc '!;