Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RESOLUTION No. 05-060 <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br />CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> <br />SOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ApPROVING VN 05-02. <br /> <br /> <br />HEREAS, an application for a variance has been made by Mr. Mark Pignatello, of Marquis, <br />Inc. to remove the existing home and build a single family home at 1795 Long <br />Lake Rd., which will require a lot width variance of 15 feet; and <br /> <br />HEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: <br /> <br />1. An application for a special use permit was filed with the City of New <br />Brighton on June 29, 2005. <br />2. The Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a <br />public hearing on July 19,2005, and all present were given a chance to freely <br />speak at the hearing; <br />3. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council. <br />4. On July 26, 2005, the City Council considered the request. <br /> <br />Now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact <br />in respect to VN 05-02: <br />1. The subject site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. <br />2. The subject lot is 60-feet wide. <br />3. The lot width requirement for lots in the R-l Zoning District is 75 feet. <br />4. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new dwelling on a parcel <br />of record that is 60 feet in width. <br />5. The applicant is requesting a IS-foot variance from the required 75 foot lot <br />width standard. <br />6. Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of <br />carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the City of New Brighton <br />Zoning Ordinance, the Council shall have the power, in a specific case, to <br />permit a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. The crucial points of <br />the variance are: <br />a. Undue hardship <br />b. Unique circumstances <br />c. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan <br />d. Variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the <br />public as a whole. <br />7. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property <br />in question and was not created by the applicant. <br />8. The requested variance conforms to the comprehensive plan and would not be <br />detrimental to adjacent property owners or the public as a whole. <br />9. On July 19,2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and all <br />present were given a chance to be heard. <br />I:\COUNCIL\RESOLUTlONS\2005\Com Dev\VN 05-02_1795 Long Lake Rd_ 15 ft Lot Variance.doc <br />