Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTIOtr' ti0 <br />STATE OF lNINNESOTA <br />COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br />.CITY OF NE~1 BRIGHTON ` <br />.RESOLUTION t~iAKI!VG FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATIOtI FOR VARIANCE, <br />VPd-225 <br />+,;;EkEAS, an application for a variance entitled VN-225 has been made by <br />the City of t~ew Brighton to construct a well house with less than the required <br />side yard setback; and <br />Vu'~;EREAS, t"e procedural history of the application is as follows: <br />1. That an application for variance, Vti-225 was filed wi±h the City of Newt <br />Brighton on December 1, 19$2. <br />2. Tt-at the Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, <br />'geld a public hearing on December 21, 1982, all persons present at the <br />hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. ; <br />3. That such application was reviewed by the City Council on December 28, ~ <br />1982. ~ <br />4. T;~e written comments and analysis of the city staff, the Planning <br />Commission minutes and recormendations were considered. <br />!~lOI~Y T~!EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the New 6righton City Council makes the <br />` following Findings of Fact in respect to yl~-225: <br />1. That the property is zoned I-1, Light industrial; <br />"c. That the well construction is a result of a water contamination problem' <br />facing the City creating a unioue circumstance; <br />3. That the City's construction location. of the structure is strictly re- <br />g~:lated by the t%,innesota Dealt" Cepartment and the undue hards,~ip facing <br />the City would be to purchase adcitional property to meet the 60 feet <br />setback requirement in the zoning code; <br />4. That public facility structures are allowed in residential districts and <br />is therefore not considered by the zoning code of being a typical <br />industrial use; <br />S. That if subject bt~ildina was constructer on reside^tiall! zoned property <br />next to a residential district that the 6J foot setback would not be <br />applicable; <br />C. That the proposed building will have a SO foot setback ar~d the adjacent. <br />structures on the adjoining property are apartment garages; and <br />7. That the i0 foot variance will therefore not adversely affect adjacent <br />properties. <br />B~ .T F~1RTFER RESOLVEL, that t"e application t'~!-225 is hereby approved. <br />.adopted this day of 1982. <br />Sreoory B. Harcus , '''ayor <br />ATTEST: <br />Janes -.:. Fornel 1 , City 'tanager <br />John R. Grau, Acting City Clerks <br />~SF4L I ~ <br />