Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Ii I <br /> '\ <br /> , I' <br /> ~ ,! <br /> I q <br /> i \, <br /> II <br /> I~ ~ 1 <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I; I <br /> ! <br /> II RESOLUTION NO. 2225 <br /> I <br /> STATE OF MINNESOTA I <br /> COUNTY OF RAMSEY I <br /> , I <br /> II CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON <br /> I <br /> tI <br /> H RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING REZONING <br /> Ii <br /> APPLICATION FOR R-I07 <br /> !i <br /> !I WHEREAS, a petition for rezoning, R-I07, has been made <br /> II <br /> I , by Richard Ernst R.C.E. Corporation to rezone property from <br /> 'I B-3, General Business to R-2, Two Family Residential and R-3B, <br /> il <br /> 1I Multiple-Family located generally west of the Rice Creek <br /> II <br /> I Shopping Center, south of Mississippi Street and north of <br /> il Rice Creek Road. <br /> !I WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is <br /> j~ <br /> IJ as follows: <br /> II <br /> H 1 . That an application for rezoning, R-I07 was filed <br /> II <br /> II with the City of New Brighton. <br /> l!, 2 . That such application was reviewed by the New Brighton I <br /> II <br /> I. Planning Commission Board of Review on May 19, 1979. I <br /> II <br /> i <br /> Ii 3 . That the City Council, pursuant to published and mailedj <br /> II notices, held a public hearing on June 26, 1979, all I <br /> person's present at the hearing were given an I <br /> 'I opportunity to be heard. I <br /> 1 <br /> F <br /> , ' <br /> )I <br /> iI 4. The written comments and analysis of the City staff, I <br /> the Planning Commission minutes and recommendations I <br /> 'I i <br /> II were considered. I <br /> I , I <br /> I) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Brighton City <br /> Ii <br /> II Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to I <br /> I) R-I07. I <br /> H <br /> , <br /> II That the proposed Comprehensive Plan designates this I <br /> 11 l. <br /> 11 area for low density residential; <br /> 1; <br /> II 2 . That zoning districts of R-l and R-2 are the zoning I <br /> i <br /> II districts which provide for the density suggested 1 <br /> II by the low density residential land use category; <br /> il <br /> tl 3 . That the proposed Comprehensive Plan indicated that <br /> II <br /> ;1 this area could be considered for a higher density <br /> Ii if developed as a Planned Residential Development; <br /> 1-1 <br /> Ii <br /> 'I That the proposed R-3B zoning because it results in <br /> II 4 . <br /> II a higher density than indicated by the proposed <br /> Comprehensive Plan is ~naonsistent ~ith the proposed <br /> il Comprehensive Plan. <br /> II <br /> H <br /> Ii <br /> I <br /> I <br /> II <br /> 'I <br /> Ii <br /> Ii <br /> II <br /> II <br /> q <br /> Ii <br /> !; <br /> II <br />