|
<br />-~,.- ~~'.
<br />
<br />-...(
<br />
<br />f'
<br />
<br />- ,.,..
<br />
<br />,..
<br />
<br />RESOLUTIOrJ NO
<br />
<br />2fi77,
<br />
<br />~. "
<br />
<br />""
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />STATE OF ~HNNESOTA
<br />COU~TY OF RAMSEY
<br />CITY Of NEW BRI~HTON
<br />
<br /><RESOLUTION f1AKPlG FINDINGS OF ,FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE,
<br />VN-225
<br />
<br />H;,:EEE/J,S, an appl ication for a variance entitled V~~-225 has been made by ,
<br />the Gity of Ne\'! Brighton to construct a well house with less than the required'
<br />side yard setback; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, t~e procedural history of the application is as follows:
<br />1. That an application for variance, VN-225 was fnedwith the City of New
<br />Brighton on December 1. 1982.
<br />2. T~at the Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices,
<br />~eld a rublic hearing on December ~l ,1982, all persons present at the
<br />hearing were given an opportunity to b~heard.
<br />3. Thatsuch application was revie~l/ed by the City Counen on December 28,
<br />1982.
<br />L!., T!1e.written comments and ana lys i s of the ci ty staft, the Plann ing
<br />Commission minutes and recommendations were considered.
<br />
<br />['101'1 T~t:REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Brighton City Council r,lakes the
<br />following Findings of Fact in respect to VN~225:
<br />
<br />1. That the property is zonet~ I-I, Light Industrial;
<br />2. That the well construction is a result of a water contamination problem
<br />facing the City creating a unique circumstance;
<br />3. That the City's cOI1'spruction locationof the structure is strictly re-
<br />qulated by the Minnesota Health Cepartment and the undue hardship facing
<br />tr.e City would be to purchase additional property to rleet the 60 feet
<br />setback reouirement in the zonina code;
<br />4. That publi~ facility structures ~re allowed in residential districts and
<br />is therefore not considered by the zoning code of being a typical
<br />industrial use; .
<br />5. That if subject building was constructed on residential1yzo~ed property
<br />next to a residential district that the. 50 foot setback would not be
<br />applitable~
<br />'S. That the prooosed bu il d i nq wi 11 have a 50 foot setback and the adjacent
<br />structure~ o~ the adjoini~g property are apartment garages; and '
<br />7. That the 10 foot variance will therefore not adversely affect adjacent
<br />oroperties.
<br />
<br />s::: IT FURWE~ RESOLVEr:, tb.Q.t the apol ication V~I-225 is hereby approved.
<br />ta\ '
<br />., / i ," "
<br />I~dopted thiscyltl day of ':'. / /'-,.-{A.",.!........l;A~ , 1982.
<br />
<br />
<br />,/~~,,;;?
<br />~i:ayor --"--
<br />
<br />'::",
<br />
<br />, j. .^
<br />t 'f;
<br />"<
<br />
<br />/"l'
<br />JflE>~-~, Jr, -::-r;~,;? (,:
<br />, "',"'.e? I,:. " Fade 11, Ci ty i~anager
<br />
<br />ATTEST:
<br />
<br />('''-~'''t (':0 ,'" 'l~,'
<br />-=~~.~~t4d ,r~~~',)t~:'~~i~~:Y'
<br />PhYllis J..' b apliL:.,";Vcputy
<br />
<br />Clerk
<br />
<br />( Sr !'I 'j
<br />~.. 'L~I
<br />
<br />
<br />
|