Resolution 1742 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ , " ~, . . '- r;. .~ " .... RESoLOO:lOO NO. 174-2 STATE OF j)/'ill-mESOTA COljNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF'NEW 13RIGf;l'lU.\J RESOLUTIOt.~ .MAKING FINDTI\lGS OF FACT, and denying application for Special Use Permit No. 69 and stating the reason for such denial. WHEREAS, an application for a Special Use Permit No. 69 has been nade to the City and said application has been processed, revie..ed by the Planning Conmission and considered by the Council at a public hearing, NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Brighton City Council makes the following Findings Of Fact in respect to S.P. No. 69 ~ FUIDINGS OF FACT: 1. 'lhat an application for S. P. 69 was filed with the City on February 11, 1976; 2. Tha t the application met the technical requirements for consider- ation by the City; 3. '!hat the Planning Commission considered the application at its regular meeting held on February 17, 1976 and re~nded denial of the application; 4. '!hat the City Council, pursuant to published and nailed notices, held an public hearing on April 13, 1976 to oonsider the application. 'fuat hearing was continued to May 11, 1976 for further oonsideration, at \\hich :rreeting the Council requested that the applicant sul:Ini t a plan in conformi. ty with the sign ordinance of the City of New Brighton by June 22, 1976. Orr June 22, 1976, a letter was received fran the applicant requesting a continuance and the application was continued to be heard on July 13, 1976. 'Ihe applicant and other persons present at the various. neetings were given opp:::>rtunity to be heard. 5. '!he written ccrrrnents and analysis of -t:he.ci ty Planner, the Planning Conmission Hinutes and recormendations and all persons' staterrents made at the public hearing were considered including the staterrents of the applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for preliminary approval of S. P. 69 be hereby denied for the following reasons: 1. '!hat the existing Clark Pharmacy sign was erected without a permit in violation of the provisions of the Ordinances of the City of New Brighton.; 2. 'Ihat the sign existing on the Pharmacy is a projecting sign and Ooes not meet the intent of Section 14-070 (g) of the Ordinance regarding canopy signs. 3. That the existing sign interrupts the arcl'litectural detail of the building and is contrary to the Code; 4. That. the Council had requested a plan to bring the signing of t..lte property into cc>nfornance with the New Brighton Code and that such plan has not been provided; , 5. 'lh,at the proposed sign plan, as, prQvided, does not meet the criteria of the New Brighton Code;