06-05-01 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

encroach further onto the lake with his proposed additions. He said he had met with the Planner who gave him a list of questions on which to base his findings of fact. He used the same Findings of Fact as Johnson and Dillion used for their variances. When he came in to apply for the building permit, he was told the City would hold the permit application because there was going to be an appeal on it because the Planning Commission did not present Findings for their decision to approve the variance. He asked why this is an appeal with the Council rather than sending the application back to the Planning Commission asking for findings of fact. Mayor Hunt explained that the City code states the Planning Commission is responsible for acting on variance requests, and if appealed, the appeal goes to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which is the Council. Planner Dillerud stated there were findings of fact attached to the staff report, which was in the form of a resolution for potential denial. Marls Deziel, 8036 50`1' Street, Second Alternate on the Planning Commission, stated he was the one that came up with the Findings of Fact that were handed out to the Council tonight. He stated that he made the Planning Commission motion to approve the variance; and he reviewed the tape of the meeting to hear the discussion. He stated that most of the findings he submitted are identical to the findings made for approval on the Golish property next door. The nature of the Hardship is the land and the depth of the land compared to the OHWM. He stated that the nature of a hardship has to do with the lay of the land. The two parcels are identical as to the nature of the Hardship. To find one parcel has a Hardship and the other parcel doesn't have a Hardship is a huge contradiction. It would be very hard not to be arbitrary and caprecious when such findings are found and asked the Council to correct the technicality. He stated that he has asked if aside from the shoreland provisions, would the applicant even need to make a variance application. The answer was, no. It was the findings of the Commission for both of the properties that reasonable improvements and remodeling is a right enjoyed by other property owners in the area. Many sites were pointed out at the meeting. There was only one vote against the motion, and it would be his guess today that Commissioner would change his vote in favor. If there is a technicality because we went through without writing Findings of Fact there is an administrative mistake of doing things in the City; and, maybe, Findings of Fact should be stated in favor of the applicant. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DUNE 5, 2001 6