Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 22, 1975 <br />Council Proceedings <br />City of New Brighton <br /> <br />He further stated that the proposed use was less <br />offensive than certain permitted uses in the district. <br />Mr. Jacobson added that only two houses faced 5th <br />Street N.W. <br /> <br />Rene Bourdeaux, 545 3rd Avenue, stated objection <br />to the proposed use of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Loscheider stated that the property would not <br />be adequate for a truck terminal. <br />Motion by Fisher, seconded by Anderson to close <br />hearing <br />5 ayes- 0 nayes- carried <br /> <br />Motion by Fisher, seconded by Eagon to direct <br />administration to prepare a resolution denying <br />VN-140 such resolution to include the following <br />reasons: <br />1. No hardship or unique circumstances <br />applying to land have been shown; <br />2. This site layout itself and its proposed <br />use creates the problem relative to the <br />buffer strip and not the property itself; <br />3. The proposed use is inconsistent with other <br />uses of land in the immediate area particularly <br />the adjacnet uses, <br />4. The proposed use would be detrimental to the <br />City as it is located at a highly visual <br />point at one of the principal avenues of <br />access to the City from the freeway system; <br />5. The requested fencing in lieu of curbing <br />would present a continuing maintenance and <br />repair problem as evidenced by the admission <br />of the applicant; <br />6. There is no evidence to support a finding of <br />fact that the proposed special use is essential <br />or desirable to public convenience or welfare or <br />in harmony with the elements or objectives of <br />the master plan in accordance with Section <br />11-020 of the zoning code; <br />7. The proposed use contains many items which are <br />contrary to the basic purpose and intent of the <br />zoning code and are detrimental to the general <br />health, welfare, safety, order and convenience to " <br />New Brighton and its citizens; <br />8. There is no demonstrated justification for <br />reduction of setback requirement particularly <br />when located across the street from single <br />and double family residential district which <br />are developed and used for residential purposes. <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Close <br />Hearing <br />