My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 2035
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Resolutions
>
Resolutions 1978
>
Resolution 2035
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2008 7:46:08 AM
Creation date
6/25/2008 8:20:41 AM
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 /> , ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2035 <br />. <br />... " , <br /> STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />I COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br /> CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING PLANNED <br /> RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRD #26 <br /> WHEREAS, an application for Planned Residential Development <br /> PRD #26 has been made by Keith T. Harstad for property located <br /> generally east of 16th Avenue SW and north of the Soo Line <br /> railroad tracks, and <br /> WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as <br /> follows: <br /> 1. That an application for PRD #26 was filed with the <br /> City on March 22, 1978. <br /> 2. That the Board of Review heard and reviewed the <br /> application at its meeting of March 28, 1978. <br /> 3. That the City Council, pursuant to published and <br /> mailed notices, held a public hearing on April 11, <br /> 1978 to consider the application. All persons <br /> present at the hearing were given an opportunity to <br /> be heard. <br /> 4. The written comments and analysis of the City Planner, <br /> the Planning Commission minutes and recommendations <br /> and all person's statements made at the public hearing <br /> were considered. <br /> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of <br /> New Brighton that the following findings of fact are made in <br /> respect to PRD #26: <br /> 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the <br /> type, density, height and bulk of surrounding lands, <br /> the zoning ordinance and proposed comprehensive plan. <br /> 2. That the proposal is consistent with the stated <br /> purposes of the PRD ordinance as it makes the most <br /> efficient use of land and open space. <br /> 3. That circulation and open space are adequate for their <br /> intended purposes. <br /> 4. That the proposed development would not be detrimental <br /> to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare <br /> of the surrounding area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.