Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12. That the proposed vehicle sales lot will increase traffic to and from <br />the subject property. <br /> <br />13. That the proposed vehicle sales lot amy adversely impair the use of <br />surrounding properties. <br /> <br />14. That the proposed vehicle sales lot will not be harmonious with the <br />specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />15. That the proposed vehicle sales lot may be hazardous to neighboring <br />use s. <br /> <br />16. That the proposed vehicle sales lot will be adequately served by <br />essential public services and facilities. <br /> <br />17. That the proposed vehicle sales lot will not be consistent with the <br />intent and purposes of the Zoning chapter. <br /> <br />18. That the proposed vehicle sales lot is not currently served by adequate <br />road access. <br /> <br />19. That the proposed vehicle sales lot may not be a recommended use in the <br />Highway 10 Corridor Study. <br /> <br />20. That in 1987) the City Council denied a similar request for the subject <br />property by another applicant as there was an additional residential <br />structure on the subject property at that time. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing findings of fact was duly <br />seconded by Councilmember Pearson and upon vote being taken thereon) the <br />following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann <br />Councilmember Cox <br />Councilmember DeLuca <br />Councilmember Pearson <br />Councilmember Sorteberg <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />and the foll~Ting abstained: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />and the foll~1ing were absent: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />whereupon said findings of fact were declared duly adopted by the Ramsey <br />City Council this the 28th day of June) 1988. <br /> <br />Mayor <br /> <br />~ <br />