My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 1787
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Resolutions
>
Resolutions 1976
>
Resolution 1787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2008 7:46:03 AM
Creation date
6/24/2008 4:16:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> ii 'I <br />........ ,"-. <br />. ".. <br />~ r~ <br /> RESOI1JTION NO. 178i7 <br /> STATE OF MI:NNESOTA <br /> COONTY OF RAMSEY <br /> CITY OF NEW BRIGH'lDN <br /> nESOliJTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACl', and denying application for VN 161. <br /> WHERE:AS, an applic::ation for variance entitled VN l61 has been made to <br /> the City and said app1ication.h,as been processed. and reviewed by the Planning <br /> CQnmission at its rreeting on September 21, 1976, and heard and considered <br /> by the Council at a public hearing on September 26, 1976, <br /> NOil, THE:REFORE, BE 10:(' RESOLVED, that the New Brighton City Council <br /> nakes the foJ.1CMing Findings of Fact in respec:t to VN 161: <br /> FINDINGS OF FACl': <br /> 1. That an application for VN 161 was filed with the City and was <br /> hEi!ard and~yiewed by the Planning Corrmission at its rreeting on September 21, <br /> 1976; <br /> 2. That the City Council, pursuant to publi$led and mailed notices, <br /> held a public hearing on September 26, 1976, tq consi<ier the application. The <br /> applicant and other persons present at the hearing were given opportunity to <br /> be.. heard; <br /> 3. 'Ihe written ~ts .and analysis of the City Planner, the <br /> Planning Coomission Minutes and reb:mrendations and all persons' statements <br /> nadeat the public hearing were ,CG;>l,lSidered including. the ..stateIrents of the <br /> applicant and rrembers of the Counci,l. <br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for VN l61 be hereby <br /> denied for the following reasons: <br /> 1. That no undue hardship shCMn by the applicant at the Planning <br /> Coomission ~ting or at the public hearing. <br /> 2. That the subject property was not shCMIl to be unique and no other <br /> unique circllIl1l:;ltances were shCMIl to be present. <br /> ~ <br /> 3. That the New Brighton Zoning Code provides for limiL:Yl=-ion of <br /> intensity of the land developmen~ by the leg;i.slatively4ete'rmined <br />. , floor-area-rati:lo requirement. <br />. 4. The floor...area...ratio is legislq,tively provided as a Zoning District <br /> Standard applying unifonnly to all pl:'Operties in the district, independent of <br /> use or other factors. <br /> 5. The floor-area-ratio, as legislatively proVided, detennines the <br /> ultimate parcel density and hence detennines parcel value. <br /> 6. The floor-area-ratio is by its inherent nature, as a ratio, com- <br /> pletely nondiscriminatory allowing any and all properties in a given zoning <br /> district to be 'developed in proportion to size. <br /> 7.That theUnited States Constitution pursuant to the Fourteenth <br /> AnEribrent requires that zoning administration be conducted to provide equal <br /> treat:Irent to all those similarly situated with respec:t to the law. <br /> 8. That it is a finding of the New Brighton City Council that equity <br /> Of treat.rrent of all those similarly situated acquires unifonnenforcement of <br /> floor-area-ra.tio to all parcels within a given zoning district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.