Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br />.. ,. / <br />;"~/ti6 '" <br />~.. - .,... ,- <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 1960 <br /> STA TE OF MINNESOTA <br /> COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br /> CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATIONS <br /> FOR VARIANCE VN-174 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PL-lll <br /> WHEREAS, applications for a variance VN-174 and a <br /> preliminaty platPL-lll have been made by Dynamic Developers, <br /> Inc. to permit the platting of lots less than 75 feet in <br /> width and less than 10,000 square feet in area, and <br /> WHEREAS the procedural history of the applications is <br /> as follows: <br /> 1. That applicati.,ons f.orVN-174 and J?t-lll were <br /> filed with the City onSeptemIDer 13, 1977 and <br /> were heard and reviewed by the Planning <br /> Commission at its; meetings of September 20, <br /> 1977 and September 28, 1977 ; <br /> 2. That the City Counci~, pursuant to published <br /> and mailed notices, held a public hearing on <br /> October 25, 1977 to consider the applications. <br /> All persons present at the hearing were given <br /> an opportunity to be heard; <br /> 3. The written comments and analysis of the City <br /> Planner', " the Planning Commission minutes and <br /> recommendations, and all person1s statements <br /> made at the public hearing were considered. <br /> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City <br /> of New Brighton, that the Council hereby makes the following <br /> findings of fact in respect to VN-174 and PL-lll: <br /> 1. That no undue hardship has been shown through <br /> the application; <br /> 2. That the property has not been shown to have <br /> unique circumstances; <br /> 3. , That the property adjacent to 5th Avenue could <br /> be divided into standard sized lots; <br /> 4. That platting in the manner proposed would <br /> create undersized lots; <br /> 5. That without the public hearing on the <br /> comprehensive plan and within the structure <br /> of the present ordinance, approval of the <br /> variance would constitute special privilege <br /> and that it would result in the over develop- <br /> ment of the property. <br />