My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-099
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 001-100
>
VN-099
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 12:12:02 PM
Creation date
2/20/2007 11:30:55 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f <br />COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS <br />VILLAGE OF NEW BRIGHTON <br />Pursuant to due call and published notice thereof, ,a regular meeting of <br />the New Brighton Village Council was held at 8 p.m., February 27, 1973 <br />in the Municipal Building Council Chambers, 803 5th Avenue N.W., <br />New Brighton, Minnesota. <br />w. <br />Present: Mayor Gayle C. Bromander, Councilmen Donald A. Anderson, <br />Diana Eagon, Gene Fisher, Paul Rebelein. <br />Also Present: Thomas F. Lewcock, Village Manager; Quentin K. Wood, <br />Director of Public Works, Vernon C. Pederson, Clerk- <br />Treasurer. <br />Motion by Eagon, seconded by Anderson to approve Minutes - <br />minutesof February 13, 1973 Feb. 13, 1973 <br />5 ayes 0 nayes - carried <br />Public Hearings <br />Motion by Eagon, seconded by Anderson to receive VN-99, Paron <br />letter from Mastor & Mattson, Ltd, dated <br />February 20, 1973 <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br />Motion by Rebelein, seconded by Fisher to close <br />gearing <br />3 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br />motion by Bromander, seconded by Rebelein to grant <br />variance for front and side yard parking at less <br />than required setback but that setback be at least <br />sha1 i i C1' ?iZ°:: area ?:: aiSv ..° i.. <br />conformance with the plan dated February 27, 1973. <br />3 ayes 2 nayes - motion failed (Fisher,Eagon) <br />Councilman Fisher stated for the record his reasons for voting nayes <br />The granting of the variance would constitute a gross extension <br />of a non-conforming use, by use of the variance. As such it is <br />in violation to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. <br />The granting of such variances in .industrially zoned area <br />is, in fact, allowing a much denser development than <br />intended by the zoning code. Such a request is, in fact, a <br />request,to rezone to B-3 and should be considered as such <br />in relation to the comprehensive zoning of the entire <br />village and in relation to the total amount of B-3 land <br />desirable. (Even under the dense B-3 zone it would require <br />l variance). <br />The granting of this variance would require the further <br />granting of a variance in the number of required parking <br />places at some later date.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.