VN-207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESOLUTION NO STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND GRANTING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION VN-207 WHEREAS, An application for a Variance, VN-207, has been made by Donald P. McGinn, 2303 14A Street, to permit the construction of a duplex with less than the required front yard, side yard, street-yard setback. WHEREAS, The procedural history of t-he application i.s as follows: 1. That an application for a variance, VN-207 was filed with the City of New Brighton on July 11, 1979. 2. That such application was reviewed by the New Brighton Planning Commission Board of Review on July 17, 1979. 3. That the City Council, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on August 14, 1979, all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. The written comments and analysis of the City staff, the Planning Commission minutes and recommendations were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED., that the New Brighton City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN-207. 1. That the lot is zoned R-2, Two Family Residential and the lot has the necessary area and width. 2. The applicant warrants a. that Lot 11 and Lot 5 of Stony Lake Addition are. the only two lots in the City of New Brighton which are located between a street and R-1 lot. b. that a front yard setback of tweety (20) feet, a side yard setback of five (5) feet, and a street yard setback of fifteen (15) feet would allow very good sight lines because of the angular placement of the structure. c. that a similar application was. reviewed by the City of New Brighton Planning Commission and found acceptable. d. that a public hearing on the proposal solicited only one third party comment and it was favorable to the approval of this variance. 3. The applicant also warrants a. the side yard setback of 30 feet in place of the customary 5 feet is discriminatory against this duplex because the rule was devised as protection for conditions which are not present with the proposed design. b. the front yard setback of 30 feet is excessive because the proposed design does not block or disrupt reasonable sight lines, and because the proposed 20 feet allows 33 feet to park four cars inside the property line by virtue of the shape of the building.