The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-17-1978 Planning Packeti:to L' -•m ' f I AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1981 Council Representative - Tom Frahm Call to Order 1. Call to order/roll Public Hearings 2. 7:30 PM #662 New Life Bible Church, 830 Old Crystal Bay Rd. Preliminary Subdivision 3. 7:45 PM #615 Judd Ringer, 2280 Wayzata Boulevard Preliminary Subdivision Action Items 4, #663 Timothy Peterson, 280 Orono Orchard Road Conditional Use Permit idMI 5. #667 Kent Swanson, 3229-B Casco Circle Variance Work Session 6. #665 Richard Speeter, 659 Minnetonka Highlands Conditional Use Permit 7. #666 Vicki Wisegarver, 3800 Wayzata Boulevard Conditional Use Permit Information Items 8. Status report on the Community Management Plan Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of the November 16, 1981o Planning Commission minutes. S J MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMI4ISSIOM I4EETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 The Planning Commission met on the above date. The fol lowing members were present: Chairman Hammerel, Goetten, pheim, McDonald, Callahan, and the new member Charles Kelley. Tom Frahm was present from the Council. Mabusth represented the City staff. ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM Albin Thies was present. Also present for this application were: John Quaro, Graydon Wox, and Sydney Phillips. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mabusth explained the change in the park dedication fee. There would be a $100.00 charge for Lot 1.- and $50.00 for Lot 2. Planning Commission found no further problems. ALBIN THIES 830 Old Crystal Bay Road North Subdivision #662 Public Hearing 7:30 - 7:32 PM Hammerel moved to approve the preliminary subdivision of Albin Thies finding that both newly created lots satisfy the standards of the RR-IB zoning district and that each lot has direct access to a public road, and subject to the following conditions: 1 - Dedication of right of way (40' for County Road 6 and 33* for Old Crystal Bay Road) 2 - Flowage and conservation easement (quit claim deed) granted to the City over the designated wetlands. 3 - Payment to the City of a park fee of $150.00. 1 - Access to Lot 2 is to be reviewed by the Public Works Director prior to construction. 1:' Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0).ii Graydon McCulley was present for Mr. Ringer. Also present for this application were the following neighbors: Mr. and Mrs. Lois Matheson of 900 Willow Drive; and Mr. Phil Fettig of 960 Willow Drive. Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. JUDD RINGER 2280 Wayzata Blvd Subdivision #615 Public Hearing 7:45 - 7:48 PM (■ Mabusth stated to the Planning Commission that no preliminary approval could be made until the grading and drainage plans are submitted and reviewed by the City staff. Kelley asked about the pond and who would be maintaining it? Mabusth noted that the body of water was Dickey Lake and part of the public waters. She noted that the second phase of this application would deal with the lots that have riparian rights to the lake. Goetten asked about the road access off Willow Drive? ^ A' ; ^^abusth explained that the access locations at Willow f ^Pnave been approved and access to all lots will be via the plat road not off Willow. At the time of the second phase plat the loop road would be completed, and the cul de sac replaced. il - ‘i 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 2 f: Goetten asked Mabusth if the Highway Department had reviewed the application?(RINGER CONT.) Mabusth noted the letter received from the Highway Department stating that they found no problems. Kelley asked if the City would be responsible for maintaining the roads? Mabusth stated that the plat road is a private road and that the benefitting property owners would be responsible for the maintenance of the road. McCulley asked if the drainage and grading plans had no further problems, would the Planning Commission approve of this type of application? Planning Commission stated that they had no problem with the proposed plans, but they would need to see the grading and drainage plans first. McDonald moved to table the Ringer application until applicant submits grading and drainage plans for the entire plat. Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Mr. Newman, applicant's representative, was present. The ^following neighbors were present; Mrs. Edstrom of 190 HyOrono Orchard Road, and David Quay of 125 Smith Avenue. Mabusth presented the City Engineer's letter stating there were no problems with the antenna structure. TIMOTHY PETERSEN 280 Orono Orchard Conditional Use Permit #663 Opheim stated that tne Planning Commission needs legal advice on the issue of interference as far as it relates to the City's responsibility of maintaining the public health, safety and welfare. Mabusth stated that the City Attorney would address this issue. Hammerel noted that a conditional use permit is issued to the property owner, not to the renter of resident. It was noted for the record that if Petersen moved he would take the structure with him. Opheim moved to table the conditional use permit for the operation of a 65' antenna structure at 280 Orono Orchard Road subject to review of the City Attorney's report on question of interference. Callahan seconded. Hammerel then asked for any further discussion. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 3 Newman noted that formal approval would have Mr. Peters:ai's name on it not the owner's. He stated that he had talked ith NSP and they stated that they were more than happy to handle any problems with interference. Northwestern BELL stated that they too would handle any problems right away. FCC stated that they would work with NSP and BELL and also make sure that their equipment is operating properly. Newman noted that when the antenna is not in use it would come to approximately 29' or 30'. Also that none of the neighbors should even be able to see it because of Mr. Petersen's trees. They have structurally modified the antenna to meet all requirements of the City of Orono. If the tower should fall over it would only fall on Mr. Petersen's property, not on the Peterson house nor on anyone elses property. Newman noted that Mr. Petersen sent out Mailgrams to the Edstrom's and the Rokke's who were present at the last meeting. The Mailgram advised the neighbors who to call if they were having any interference problems. Heunmerel suggested that the applicant get letters from NSP, FCC, and BELL stating that they know of the proposed antenna and that they are willing to correct any problems. (PETERSEN CONT.\ Q In the past, Mrs. Edstrom stated that BELL told them that )it wasn't their problem. NSP put two attachments on their telephone which didn't help any at all. FCC took far too long to respond to their last request. David Quay stated that they live H mile away and that they have television interference. He stated that if these companies suggest that he put any correction equipment on his property, why should he have to pay for this when its Mr. Petersan's antenna which is causing the interference. He wanted to know who was going to pay for the cost of fixing his equipment? Is Mr. Petersgn ready to install all correctional equipment on his and others equipment? Newman stated that the FCC would make a personal inspection of their property if desired. Goetten suggested a six month trial period in which Mr. Petersen could operate his antenna, then when the six months were up the City would review the application. Mabusth asked the attorney what was the maximum height of the antenna? Mr. Newman stated that when it was down the antenna would be approximately 29' and could go up to 71', but that they would make structural modification to only allow 65'. This 65' would include the special tower antennas at the top. MIllUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 4 Opheim withdrew previous motion. Opheim then asked Mr. Newman if Mr. Petersen would agree to cease all transmission upon notice of the neighbors that they were experiencing interference via the telephone, radio or television. Mr. Newman responded that Mr. Petersen would be in complete agreement. (PETERSEN CONT^l At this time the neighbors had more comments to be addressed. David Quay wanted to know at who's expense was Mr. Petersen going to operate his hobby? He stated that he was not going to add anything onto his equipment if it was Mr. Petersen's fault. Newman stated that Petersen has been operating within the same frequency band for the past few months and there has been no signs of interference. The height of the antenna will have no affect on tho. transmission. He stated that Mr. Petersen was more than happy to personally check with the chief of the FCC. Newman asked the neighbors if they had any problems since Mr. Petersen had been using the new, more expensive equipment. The neighbors stated that they have had no problems recently. O Goetten stated that first the neighbors should call the appropriate agency when they experience any interference. Mr. Petersen should also be contacted r garding any interference and work to solve the problem, and then when all else fails the City should be notified. Opheim moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that any radio, television, or telephone interference noted by the neighbors (they are to notify the City) '' \t Mr. Petersen is to shut down his operation immediately the cause of the interference is determined and further that Mr. Petersen agrees to bear any expense for modification at his expense for modification to his neighbors personal equipment should it be determined that such modification is necessary to preclude interference by Mr. Petersen's radio transmission. McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Mr. and Mrj. Swanson and Mr. Nesset, applicant's architect, were present. Mabusth noted to the Planning Commission that the proposed addition will go over the existing hardcover, and that it also encroaches into the 75' lakeshore setback area. KENT SWANSON 3229-B Casco Circle Variance #667 O. Nesset noted a hardship of the lot being an unusual pie shaped. Mabusth noted that 17,000 sf of their total property of 30,000 sf was unbuildable because of the shape of the lot. Tr'3'Timr' rr' 1 ^ ^ r »r ‘ 1 i n ^ ^ ’il'l ^ ^ Biaiu MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 5 Mrs. Swanson noted that the existing patio would be removed when the addition is built/ and also that to move that line back they would have to remove their remaining trees which are not diseased elms. Goetten asked if it was possible to comply with our setback requirement by redesigning the addition and eliminating the 3' into the sensitive setback area? Mr. Nesset noted that if they were to leave off that extra 3' that it would cut off a corner of the dining room. Goetten asked the architect if there was no way that this could be accomplished. (SWANSON CONT^-l. Kelley asked what type of patio they would be putting up?mmApplicants noted it would be a type of decking patio. Goetten asked if it was impervious to water? Nesset replied that it was half and half. Opheim noted that there was already a hardcover problem, but that there would be a tradeoff. Opheim moved to approve the Kent Swanson variance subject to the following findings and hardships: 1 - Odd shape of lot - pie shaped 2 - Existing trees 3 - Previous 50* setback line when house was built. 4 - No additional land available. 5 - 3,500 sf of existing hardcover is the shared driveway for abutting properties. 6 - Only feasible location for the addition is to the front lakeside of the house. such approval is subject to the following condition: 1 - Removal of brick patio. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Richard Speeter was present. Mr. Speeter gave a little background on his property to the new members who were present. His main concern was with access to the dock. He stated that he built a 6* x 67* cement ramp to hold erosion back from the lakeshore banks. 0' Mabusth asked if the lagoon was navigable in 1972 when e purchased the property? ^:. V: :v . .. / ■.; .v; RICHARD SPEETER 659 Minnetonka Highlands Lane Conditional Use Permit #665 Speeter stated that when he bought the property the lagoon was navigable and that he received a copy of a DNR permit that did state the lagoon had navigable waters. Now the mouth of the lanoon is fillinq in and is not navinablo. < 3 i I ■^*1 Ifc- ■ i|MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 6 Kelley asked how often it would have to be dredged? Speeter replied approximately every 20 years and that he should have dredged it 5 to 6 years ago. He also noted that every summer he had to bring in black dirt to cover the eroded grounds. Hammerel noted for the record the November 3, 1980, Planning Commission minutes which stated that in their approval of the bridge that Speeter/Henninger were proposing to construct that the City forewarned him of the City's policy on dredging and told him that a dredging permit would more than likely be denied. Speeter noted that it was dredged before and that now the lagoon was reverting back to its original state that of a swamp. Mabusth noted that the walkway access was recently formalized at the Council meeting of November 23, 1981. Speeter noted that his erosion problems and the erosion from the lagoon area which was coming from the storm sewer which contributed to the filling of the lagoon area. ^Opheim stated that the City shouldn't tell him that ^he is going to have a swamp in his back yard. McDonald stated that if it was maintenance dredging then the City might approve it and that if he had lost any riparian rights then the City would consider it, but as it is she doesn't think any riparian rights have been lost. Goetten noted that he does have an opening to the lake now. Mabusth noted that the lagoon would never return to its original state because of the land alterations that opened the lagoon at the far end. Goetten asked the applicant if he had filed an application for a retaining wall? Speeter stated negative and asked if the City was going to penalize everyone else that built things? He noted that it wasn't even in the 75' setback. Hammerel then asked for an informal poll as to whether the Planning Commission was in favor of the apclication or not. Callahan stated negative. Goetten stated negative. Hammerel stated negative. McDonald stated negative. (SPEETER CONT'. >* ... • ....•q ...f ' ;; ■ wMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 7 Opheim had no conunent. Kelley stated negative. William Mason, Mayona Sirpinski's lawyer, was present. Mr. Brokl was also present.- There was no one present from the audience. Mr. Mason gave the legal background for the Planning Commission. The fee owner is Mayona Sirpinski. Planning Commission stated that in the absence of the City Attorney's opinion that they shouldn' t take any action until the legal ownership question is decided. Callahan noted that foriuciJ .ucIrion could not be taken until the City's restraining order is satisfied. First of all what hasn't been discussed is the law suit that the City of Orono brought in which Vicki Wisegarver was restrained from carrying on the business, regardless of the ownership question. So until the City Attorney of Orono advises the Planning Commission that they can proceed further, nothing should be done. He noted that a temporary restraining order and a law suit the City of Orono brought against the Wisegarvers prohibits the operation of that business or any habitational use until further order of the court or until various other things have been proven to the satisfaction of Orono. This doesn't have anything to do with whether Wisegarver owns it or whether Mr. Masons client owns it, but if your getting your business lease from Wisegarver their prohibited by law from giving one to Mr. Brokl. Mabusth noted that the City Planner had been advised that the Planning Commission could proceed with the review. She noted that the very fact that the application was before them that the Planner must have contacted the City Attorney. Callahan noted that the Planning Commission should be advised by the City Attorney that the conditions of the restraining order are not being violated in this re'^iew. Mr. Brokl stated that let's assume that Vicki Wisegarver has court clearance inact, if she has that ability then the merits of his application would determine whether or not he complies with the requirements of the City and the original conditional use permit. Applicant that until they proceed with this review he can not get a conditional use permit which would be required to satisfy the conditions of the restraining order. (SPEETER CONT.) VICKI WISEGARVER 3800 Wayzata Blvd Conditional Use Permit #666 •. /..i: m ■-.--rr MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1981 Page 8 Frahm noted for the Planning Commission considerations that must be addressed in this review: (WISEGARVER CONT) 1 - The original conditional use permit involved the owner living on the property while operating the business. The zoning on this piece of property is residential. 2 - To approve this you would almost have to rezone. Does the owner or representative have to reside on the property? Opheim stated that based on his opinion that it is a good use of the property. He stated that it shouldn’t have to be made a condition of approval that the owner live there. As long as it conforms with the City code it would be a good idea. McDonald stated that it is a commercial use in a residential area. The reason it was approved before is because they lived on the property. To approve it now they would have to rezone. Applicant asked the Planning Commission if it was more valuable as residential or commercial?v;: Mabusth noted that the existing zoning is residential and if the owner does not live on the property is this not a use variance? State code forbids the granting of use variances. ■ i , ■ ir mw Goetten stated that this application was very similar to the Leo Duehn application. She stated that she understood the zoning situation with the number of variances needed, but is it reasonable that the City should require them to build an apartment or residence on that small piece of property. Opheim felt it was an appropriate use of the land not suitable for anything else, but not living on the property could the Planning Commission legally recommend approval? 1 rm» Frahm stated that the City would have to rezone land or change the definition of a conditional use permit. Applicant stated that if the clear title to who owns the land is not decided, that he must ask for an extension of the April 8, 1982, deadline date from the resolution approving the former conditional use permit. Can the City gaurantee him an extension? m m Mabusth stated that the Council would be notified and asked to consider this point. No action required. L ■ -—;<n. • '-v'* C\, Pi|BWI # *> MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 9 Goettien moved to approve the November 16, 1981, Planning Commission minutes subject to the additions and amendments APPROVAL^ OF MINUTES Callahan seconded. Vote; Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 PM.ADJOURNMENT 10:30 PM "‘■to mr-: ■ . ■ .1 ’ 'v ' •■■ ■ ••'■ =••• ■ .•.;■ • : ••:■ •• ; = "... . A .J. J *•••.: •‘i'v V : : -■■ ■. ' • ■ • ■ • ! '■■■ A; ■■”!• •V ■ ;. ••<••• •>. A A-v =• .A- "A Oa ..a ;-. ..-v A 1 : • ; • • w;i;' : =• :.• ‘ ; "a ^ A :'V;0 ^ . v V -A - /-• A V vry. ,i: --avc jAr-'-.-K..-■A,:v;'^A',i;.Av'A.A-,’ ■•■'vA j-": =•• .•■■ :. ;v:': r- ij- ,‘.r. * . ; ;. ''-A, • /• ? / a ;A' A V; ■ 1':: . ,• sM; V;/;" 'V-.i-:. : 'AACii .•• * •' .• ■• ' V .* •, A'tLA A. A- WM:::.■■■■■ ^ ‘^'A;y'AAAv'->.;i.V;vV-, 5^;:.: i', ■ " i: :;i*. ■''Ws'l'*‘'■h:-':'.’-■.' ^ ••••*.= ••■••A.-. ••■ ••V liiiLAAii t mmi