Resolution 2216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II .' . ~ I '1 ,...... I II RES 0 L UTI 0 N NO. 2216 I i STATE OF MINNESOTA ! I COUNTY OF RAMSEY ! CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON !I ~!i \'.1 RES 0 L UTI 0 N M A KIN G FIN DIN G S 0 F FA C TAN D DEN Y I N GAP P LI CAT ION ~ FOR A BUILDING RELOCATION II' WHEREAS, an application to relocate an office-type I building onto Lot 12, Block 4, Mounds Center, has been made II by ~1r. Donald A. Nelson, 1411 West Arden Place, Arden Hills, I I Mi nnesota, and I 1\ WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is Ii I as follows: II 1 . T hat a nap p 1 i cat ion tor e 1 0 cat e a b u i 1 din g was I filed with the City on May 8, 1979. ! 2. That pursuant to published and mailed notices the I City Council held a public hearing on May 22, 1979 I to consider the application and continued the 'I h ear i n g to J u n e 1 2, 1 9 7 9 . All per son I s pre s e n t !I at the heari ng were gi ven an opportuni ty to be ~' he a rd. I 3. The written comments and analysis of the City I \ Planner and all person's statements made at the public hearing were considered. ~ NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEO by the Council of the City i 1\ of New Brighton that the following Findings of Fact are II' made in respect to the application for building relocation: I I ill. That the subject property is zoned I-I. Light I :1', Industrial as is all of the surrounding property. \1 II 2. That a vacant drive-~n restaurant is located to, Ii the north of the subject property and to the I I.....' sou t h and e a s tar e two (2) 0 c cup i e d non - con for m i n g I ~; single family homes. il 3. That the subject property and adjacent parcels vary II ins i z e f rom a p pro xi mat e 1 y ~ a c r e to 3/4 a c r e . n 4. That on an individual basis the subject and II adjacent properties are relatively small industrial i sites. II 5. That the proposed Comprehensive Plan has a stated II pol i cy t hat m 0 rei n ten s i ve use 0 fin d u s t ria 1 1 and I be encouraged while maintaining a high level of I aesthetic quality. \! 6. That the proposed Comprehensive Plan states that 11 the availability of adequately sized parcels for I I indus,trial uses should be assured by encouraging I I the elimination of small non-conforming land uses I I through combination with other parcels. I h 7. The building relocation would result in a mixture 1\ of land uses, being somewhat incompatible, and a 'I' general underuse of land. 8. That the proposed building relocation would hinder I the redevelopment of surrounding properties in- cluding the non-conforming single family homes, and therefore would be inconsistent with the \ policies and objectives of the proposed Comprehensive II PI an. \ I