Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />,Council <br />City of <br />Nov. 9, <br /> <br />Proceedings <br />New Brighton <br />1976 <br /> <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Hardt to authorize <br />administrative authority to issue building permit subject <br />to plans dated Nov. 9, 1976, and signed by the Building <br />and Planning Coordinator. <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br /> <br />The City Clerk stated that he had reviewed the hearing <br />notice with the city Attorney and found that the <br />hearing was properly called. The Building and Planning <br />Coordinator reviewed the planning report and Planning <br />Commission considerations. <br /> <br />Richard Peterson, applicant, was present. He stated he had <br />met with 12 of the 13 neighboring property owners and <br />none indicated concern with this proposal. He <br />presented a petition to the Council indicating this. <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Werdouschegg to receive petition <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br /> <br />John Wacker, 2205 Long Lake Road, stated he bordered the <br />property to the east and had no objections to the proposal. <br />He added that there was a good screen of evergreens between <br />the properties and hoped the screening would be maintained. <br />Allen Thomson, 2209 Long Lake Road, stated that the new house <br />would orient to Long Lake and that essentially would be the <br />front of the property. He stated he was in favor of the <br />variance. <br /> <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Hardt to close hearing. <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Bromander to direct <br />administration to prepare resolution approving VN-165 <br />with the following findings of fact: <br />1. That unique circumstances exist because: <br />a. The house would front to the lake; <br />b. The unusual subdivision of the property to the <br />west negatively impacts the subdivision potential <br />of the subject property; <br />c. The lot could not be subdivided without a variance. <br />2. That undue hardship exists because to not allow <br />subdivision would mandate that a lot ten times larger <br />than the City lot area requirement would have to exist. <br />3. That the trees on the easterly property line mitigates <br />the impact of the variance <br />and to direct that such resolution be considered along <br />with a minor subdivision for the property. <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Issue <br />Building <br />Permit <br /> <br />VN-165 <br />Peterson <br /> <br />10:12 to <br />10:53 <br /> <br />Close <br />Hearing <br /> <br />Adm. <br />Prepare <br />Resolution <br />