Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1' ,,...~ <br />I ~ !:II;/ 1 <br />r I' ,. <br />1II. <br /> ., <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 1353 <br /> STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br /> CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> RESOLUTION DENYING REZONING REQUEST R-83 <br /> WHEREAS Richard C. Ernst applied for rezoning from R-3A to <br /> B-3 on the following described property: <br /> Lot 78 and that part of Lot 75 Auditor's Subdivision #79 <br /> Ramsey County lying west and north of the following <br /> described line: Commencing at a point on the east line of <br /> Lot 75, said point being 30 ft. south of the south line of <br /> st. H. 100 measured at right angles, thence southwesterly <br /> along a line 30 ft. south of the parallel with the south <br /> line st. H. 100, 291.35 ft. for a point of beginning, then <br /> south parallel with the east line of Lot 75 to the point <br /> 115 ft. north of the south line of Lot 75: thence west <br /> parallel with the south line of Lot 75 to a point 230 ft. <br /> west of the east line of Lot 75, thence south parallel with <br /> the east line of Lot 75, 115 ft. to the south line of Lot <br /> 75 and there terminating <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS such application has been duly considered by the <br /> Planning Commission and the recommendation of such Planning <br /> commission has been received and reviewed, and <br /> WHEREAS a public hearing was scheduled to be held April 23, <br /> 1974, and notice thereof was duly published and mailed, and <br /> WHEREAS such public hearing was held on April 23, 1974, at <br /> which time the petitioner and all other persons interested were <br /> given an opportunity to be heard, and <br /> WHEREAS the council has duly considered all of the facts <br /> and arguments presented to it in favor of and opposed to such <br /> application <br /> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the <br /> City of New Brighton makes the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. Proposed zoning is not compatible with the area: <br /> 2. The proposed zoning'Wb-uld have a detrimental effect on <br /> property values in the area: <br /> 3. The proposed zonin~ would constitute spot rezoning: <br /> 4. Said proposed zoning is not in conformance with the <br /> proposed' land '1r1se plan: <br />