My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-05-01 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2000's
>
2001
>
06-05-01 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2025 9:18:52 AM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:27:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
encroach further onto the lake with his proposed additions. He said he had <br />met with the Planner who gave him a list of questions on which to base his <br />findings of fact. He used the same Findings of Fact as Johnson and Dillion <br />used for their variances. When he came in to apply for the building permit, <br />he was told the City would hold the permit application because there was <br />going to be an appeal on it because the Planning Commission did not present <br />Findings for their decision to approve the variance. He asked why this is an <br />appeal with the Council rather than sending the application back to the <br />Planning Commission asking for findings of fact. <br />Mayor Hunt explained that the City code states the Planning Commission is <br />responsible for acting on variance requests, and if appealed, the appeal goes <br />to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which is the Council. <br />Planner Dillerud stated there were findings of fact attached to the staff <br />report, which was in the form of a resolution for potential denial. <br />Marls Deziel, 8036 50`1' Street, Second Alternate on the Planning <br />Commission, stated he was the one that came up with the Findings of Fact <br />that were handed out to the Council tonight. He stated that he made the <br />Planning Commission motion to approve the variance; and he reviewed the <br />tape of the meeting to hear the discussion. He stated that most of the <br />findings he submitted are identical to the findings made for approval on the <br />Golish property next door. The nature of the Hardship is the land and the <br />depth of the land compared to the OHWM. He stated that the nature of a <br />hardship has to do with the lay of the land. The two parcels are identical as <br />to the nature of the Hardship. To find one parcel has a Hardship and the <br />other parcel doesn't have a Hardship is a huge contradiction. It would be <br />very hard not to be arbitrary and caprecious when such findings are found <br />and asked the Council to correct the technicality. He stated that he has asked <br />if aside from the shoreland provisions, would the applicant even need to <br />make a variance application. The answer was, no. It was the findings of the <br />Commission for both of the properties that reasonable improvements and <br />remodeling is a right enjoyed by other property owners in the area. Many <br />sites were pointed out at the meeting. There was only one vote against the <br />motion, and it would be his guess today that Commissioner would change <br />his vote in favor. If there is a technicality because we went through without <br />writing Findings of Fact there is an administrative mistake of doing things in <br />the City; and, maybe, Findings of Fact should be stated in favor of the <br />applicant. <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DUNE 5, 2001 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.