SP-069 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ .. RESOWTIOO NO. 1742 STATE OF r-'ill.JNESOTA Ce)l)NI'Y OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGH'IOl'1 RESOLUTION MAIliNG FINDINGS OF FACT, and denying application for Special Use Permit No. 69 and stating the reason for such denial. WHEREAS, an application for a Special Use Permit No. 69 has been rrade to the City and said application has been processed, revie\..;ed by the Plarming corrmission and considered by the Conncil at a public hearihg, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Brighton City Conncil makes the following Findings Of Fact in respect to S.P. No. 69: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. 'Ihat an application for S. P. 69 was filed with the City on February ll, 1976; 2. 'Ihat the application met the technical requirements for consider- ation by Jdhe City; 3. 'Ihat the Planning Corrrnission considered the application at its regular meeting held on February 17, 1976 and recormTended denial of the application; 4. 'Ihat the City Council, pursuant to published and rrailed notices, held an public hearing on April 13, 1976 to consider the applicatian~ 'lhat hearing was continued to M::l.y 11, 1976 for further consideration, at w1.ich neeting the COlIDcil requested that the applicant sul::mi t a plan in conformity with the sign ordinance of the City of New Brighton by Jnne 22, 1976. On June 22, 1976, a letter was received fran the applicant requesting a continuance and the application was continued to be heard on July 13, 1976. 'Ihe applicant and other persons present at the various r meetings were given oppJrtuni ty to be heard. 5. The written carments and analysis of the city Planner, the Planning Comnission l1inutes and recomrendations and all persons' staterrents rrade at the public hearing were considered including the staterrei1ts of the applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for preliminary approval of S. P. 69 be hereby denied for the following reasons: 1. That b'!e existing Clark Pharmacy sign was erected wib'1out a pennit in violation of the provisions of the Ordinances of the City of New Brighton; 2. Tha'c the sign existing on the Pharmacy is a projecting sign and does not rneet t.l1e intent of Section 14-070 (g) of the Ordinance regarding canopy signs. 3. 'Ihat the existing sign interrupts the architectural detail of th building and is contrary to b'1e Code; 4. 'Ihat b'1e Conncil had requested a plan to bring the signing of t.~ property into conformance va th the New Brighton Code and that such plan has no been provided; 5. 'Ihat t.."le proposed sign plan, as provided, c:lcY2s rot meet the criteria of the Nav Brighton Code; -: