0366 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

::;(t....._'i.'1' ..c";;; ...- :~ _..1 ...;. ,Q' .\ . I' ii ~; I: 11 II ,I !; d II I I I I ! i I ~ 11 Ii " I, il I' !i , I I II ~ I I II ,I !I ,I ,i r I I " ..,,~. '" . .-..,: !~r ORDINANCE NO. 366 STATE 0 F MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON (SE corner of Silver Lake Road and County Road E) . The New Brighton City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Findings of Fact a. That the City Council did, on February 10, 1976, initiate consideration of the rezoning of certain property in the City of New Brighton from General Business B-3 to Limited Business B-1, which rezoning consideration was designated R-89 b. That the City Council did call for a public hearing on R-89 to be held on February 25, 1976, and directed, published and mailed notice of such hearing to be made in accordance with the New Brighton Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes c. That published and mailed notice of such public hearing was duly made in accordance with law. d. That a public hearing was duly held on February 25, 1976, at a regularly held meeting of the New Brighton City Council. e. That at such public hearing, all persons wishing to be heard were given an opportunity to state their questions and positions either in favor of or opposed to such rezoning and any reasons for such position. I 'I I I f. That at such hearing, the written environmental assessment on the land, the Ruling by the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota that certain ponds on the land are public waters, the written recommendation of the Environmental Quality Council of the State of Minnesota, the written report of the Building and Planning Coordinator for the City of New Brighton, the minutes and recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of New Brighton, and previous testimony of the land owner, his representatives and attorney were all considered together with written and oral statements presented at such hearing. Ii II II Ii t I i g. That development of the land under a B-3 zoning classification would result ina development inconsistent and incampatable with the surrounding area. h. That development of the land under a B-3 zoning classification would be difficultt if not impossible, from an economic and ecological standpoint. i. That development of the land with uses permitted under a B-3 zoning classification would result in excessive noise, odors, litter, light glare, traffic and ecological disturbance, so as to be detrimental to surrounding lands and the City in general. ,