Resolution 1681 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! / . , ~ --. .. j 7. That mailed and published notice of such public hearing was I made in accordance with law. 8. That a public hearing - was held at a regular meeting of the ; New Brighton City Council on Janu~ry 13, 1975. 9. That at the public hearing on January 13, 1975, all persons wishing to be heard were given an opportunity to state their questions and position either in favor of or opposed to such rezoning and any reasons for such position. 10. That the public hearing was continued for the purpose of also considering the council initiated consideration of rezoning the land to Limited Business, B-1 zoning classification, with a new mailed and published notice of such hearing when the time and date are determined. II. On February 10, 1976 the City Council scheduled the con- tinuance of the public hearing on R-88 for February 25, 1976 at 8:05 P.M. to be held concurrently with the public hearing on R-89 and ordered notice by publication and mailed notice. 12. Notice of the public hearing scheduled for February 25, 1976, was duly made by publication and mailed notice. 13. That on February 25, 1976, a combined public hearing on R-88 ---~.'''~; ':~ and R-e:;9 was held. At such time all persons wishing to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and to state their position either in favor of, or opposition to either of the rezonings being considered together with any reasons for such position. 14. That at such hearing the written environmental assessment on the land, the ruling by the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota that certain ponds on the land are public waters, the written recommendation of the Environmental Quality Council of the State of Minnesota, the written report of the Building and Planning Coordinator for the City of New Brighton, the minutes and recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of New Brighton, and previous testimony of the land owner, his representatives and attorney were all considered together with written and oral statements presented at such hearing . 15. That any rezoning to a residential zoning classification would not be consistent with the recommendations of the City Planner, the Planning Commission, the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City, or general good planning. 16. To rezone to a residential classification would create an island of residential zoning adjacent to business zoning on several sides. 17. The property could not be reasonably and economically developed under a residential zoning classification. 18. There is no showing that a reduction of zoning to a residential classification is necessary to protect and preserve the health, safety, general welfare, order or convenience of the citizens of New Brighton. 19. That the roads adjacent to this land are both County Roads with high volume and high speed traffic which would present a safety, noise and pollution deterrent to any residential use of this land. , 2