81-2522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l' i ~ " !- ,-.. )1 il .. '" l" ",""" i: il I' t: 11 II .' Ii 1: l;- il I! 'I I, rJ II ,. " ., i: ~ " t ,~ 'I 1) " ,. ;1 p " " n ;1 : ~: It I' , ~ , ; ,: :i I: I! ! P " Ii " 'I ". if Ii lj " II (' 11 II I' II ! ~ I! ". !l !l I' j I! II 't !! I.: ." i' I' ,! ! Ii I: " n " I' 1! I. I! !1 I; ,l I! )' I! ,\ i' II Ii :1 l: : ~ , ,~ :) ., I. ,. ~ t ii '. Ii 'I I: '. I~ ~ ~ II 'I I' ,1 P II Ii If. RESOLUTION NO. 2522 I I '~ . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR NON-CONFORMING USE VARIANCE, NC-52' WHEREAS, an application for a non-conforming variance entitled NC-52 has been made by Robert Lee Restaurant to construct an addition to a site with less than the required number of parking spaces :',;arld WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for non-conforming use variance, NC-52 was filed with the City of New Brighton on October 6, 1981. 2. That the Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on October 20, 1981, all person's present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. That such application was reviewed by the City Council on October 27, 1981. 4. The written comments and analysis of the city staff, the Planning Commission minutes and recommendations were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Brighton city Council makes the following Findi."pgs of Fact in respect to NC-52: 1. That the property is zoned B-3, General Business~ 2. That the Clity Council approved a non-conforming use permit NC-12, August 24,'1976 at which time the owner took the following steps '" to address the Type IV non- conformities: A. Install,ed concrete curbing around ,the parking areas: B. Restored the boundary fence to screen the parking: C. Changed the lighting in the parking area: and D. Made modifications to the landscaped areas. 3. That there is only one existing Type IV non-conformity of less than the required number of parking spaces: 4. That under the approval of NC-12 the City Council re- cognized the potential of the joint parking with the First state Bank and that such joint use can be posted: 5. That the peak activity planned for the addition will not I typically beat the same time as the peak parking demand for the bank: 6. That the addition is proposed to be a banquet area for pre-SCheduled activity and could in that respect be con- sidered similar to the parking demand created by a I private club which is one space per five seats: l 7. That the applicant has obtained a written joint parking I agreement with the First State Bank to lessen the extent and impact of the non-conformity: 8. That the additional front yard landscaping will lessen the aftect of the parking on adjacent properties: 9. That a hardship would result in restricting development by not giving credit for the joint parking presently taking place: and