Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. l' !~ <br /> i <br /> '" <br />. <br />, RESOLUTION NO l57~ <br />. <br /> STATE OP MINHBSOTA <br /> courn OF RAMSEY <br /> CXTY OF 1O:W BRIGHTON <br />USOLUTION .MAKXRG FINDXNGS OP FACT, DEHYIHG A"LICATIOli FOR <br />'RBLDUJl1'.UY APPROV'AL OF PRD *20 A1ltD STATDlG aBASCDlS FOR SUCB <br />DDtXAL <br />WHEREAS an application for preliminary approval of PRO #20 <br />has been made to the City and said appllcaticm has been processed, <br />reviewed by the Planning commission and considered at a public <br />heax-inf <br />BOW THE1\BFOU BE IT RESOLVED, That the New Brighton City i <br />Council makes the following findinqs of fact in respect to <br />PRD #20: <br /> FINPINGS OF FACT <br />1. An application for preliminary approyal for PRO #20 <br /> was filed with the City on April 21, 19757 <br />2. The application met the technical requirements for <br /> consideration by the City Council: , <br />3. The Planning C01l'IlIissioi1;considered.the application <br /> at it. regular public meetings held on May 20, 1975 <br /> and June 17, 1975 and reco.-ended denial of the <br /> applieatlon7 <br />4. The City 9ouncil, pursuant. to PUblished and mailed <br /> notlces, held a public hearing on JUly 8, 1975 to <br /> eonsider the application. All persons present, <br /> inclUding the applicant, were given an opportunity <br /> to be heard and a petition containing 209 signatures <br /> was received in opposition t.o the applicat.ion: <br />5. Th. written comments and analysis of the City Building <br /> and P~anning coordinator, the Planning Commissionlminnt.Qs <br /> and ~ecommendations and the written recommendations of <br /> the New Brighton League of Women Voters as well as all <br /> persons statements made at. the public hearing were <br /> considered including the statements of the applicant. <br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the application for preliminary <br />approval of PRD #20 be and is hereby denied for the following <br />reasons: <br />1. The plan includes a number of lots smaller in front <br /> footage and t.otal lot size than t.he size required by <br /> the zoning code and smaller than the tDical residentialL <br /> lots in the neighborhood. The pet.it.ione~ failed to <br /> show any offsettinq or balancing design consideration <br /> in the plan t.o justify the small lots. The only purpoSfll <br /> appeared to be increasing the density of population t.o <br /> more than would be available under conventional <br /> platt.ing. <br />