02-068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. ., t.. RESOLUTION No.02-068 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON ;RESOLUTlON MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING OF VN02-002. WHEREAS, an application for a variance has been made by Martin Harstad for a five foot front yard parking setback and building setback exemption. 'WHEREAS, the procedural history ofthe application is as follows: 1. Martin Harstad applied for a five foot front yard parking setback and building setback variance August 3, 2002. 2. The Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on August 20, 2002, and all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the five foot front yard parking and building setback variance. 'WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN02-002: 1. The subject site is zoned B-1, Limited Business. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site is LB, Limited Business. 3. The proposed continued use ofland is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 4. The City of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-020, requires a thirty foot front yard parking setback. 5. The city of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, Section 5-040, requires a thirty foot front yard building setback. 6. The subject site was conforming prior to reconstruction of Silver Lake Road.. 7. The City of New Brighton and Ramsey County are jointly rebuilding the said road in 2002 and have detennined that a five (5) foot takings from the subject site is necessary for the reconstruction of the road. 8. Without the setback variances, the subject site would be considered non-conforming. 9. Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the City of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, the Council shall have the power, in a specific case, to permit a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. The crucial points of the variance are: a. Undue hardship b. Unique circumstances c. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan d. Variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole. 10. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property in question and was not created by the applicant. 11. The requested variance conforms to the comprehensive plan and would not be detrimental to adjacent property owners or the public as a whole. 12. The Council finds that all Variance criteria are met. 1:\SHARED\CQUNCIL\Resolutions\2002\Comm DevWN02-002_2191 Silver Lake Road.doc