Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-1988 Planning MinutesMIHUTBS OF THE PIAMHIHG COMMISSIOM TING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Bellows, Cohen, Hanson, Brown and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative, Alan Nettles, attended, and CounciImember Goetten was also pressent. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1349 LAUREN 4 JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that it was far more efficient to address the drainage and utility easements together with the lot line rearrangement. Chairman Kelley summarized that the purpose of the three Born applications was to acquire more land and add on to their existing home. Mabusth asked if the Born's would proceed with lot line rearrangement should the Planning Commission recommend denial of their variance request? Mr. Born replied that they would not be able to obtain the adjacent property if the variance was not approved. Mr. Born provided a survey showing the areas they were acquiring and hardcover they were removing. Mabusth stated that the curvature of the lakeshore created the necessity for an additional 17* setback from the lakeshore. The existing front line of the house is 45'. Kelley inquired as to whether there was any concern that the lot line rearrangement created a substandard lot. The Helper property would be reduced to 1.88 acres dry. Planning Commission member Hanson inquired as to the soils located within the 1.88 acre. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron responded that clay soils were predominant throughout that entire area. However, that would not have any effects on the septic as there is a primary and alternate septic site location on the Halper property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded HUTBS OF THB PIAHNING COMMISSIOH TIH6 NOVEMBER 21, 1989 Z0NIH6 FILE #1349 - BORN CONTINOBD by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes*5, Brown, Nay, based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. #1349 lAUREN 8 JOYCE BORM 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VACATION OF EASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 7s00 P.N. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes«5, Brown, Nay, based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. #1350 LAUREN 8 JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated on a sketch where the new driveway would be installed and what the Borns were proposing to remove. She added that the crushed rock landscape area with plastic underlining could remain as there was no excessive hardcover within the 75'-250' setback area. She asked the Planning Commission for their input as to the 17' setback from the 929.4 elevation and the 24.8' side setback from the newly created lot line. Planning Commission member Hanson expressed his concerns regarding the 17' lakeshore setback. He suggested that the Borns redesign the addition to gain a further setback. Mabusth asked for a minimum setback figure to give the Borns some direction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Planning Commission as to whether it was appropriate to grant the Borns the side setback variance at the time a lot line rearrangement is under consideration by the City? Chairman Kelley suggested gerrymandering the lot line. MINUTBS OF THr. PLAmillG COMMISSION 1\A :•TING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1350~BORN CONTINUED Planning Commission member Bellows inquired as to the square footage of the existing house. Mr. Born replied that it was 709 s.f. total. Bellows observed that because of this application being unique» there would be little or no possibility of precedent setting. Kelley concurred. Bellows went on to say that she would not see a problem with approving the side setback, but in terms of the 17' setback, she agreed with Hanson. She suggested pushing the addition back another 8'. Mr. Born stated that moving the addition 8' more from the lake would create a problem because of the need to expand existing rooms on the first floor. To move the addition 8 feet would prohibit the desired expansion. Mabusth pointed out the fact that moving the house forward would create the need for a street setback variance. The house is only 53* from the roadway. Kelley stated that he would rather have the house adhere to the street setback, than the lakeshore setback because of the safety factor as no one knows the future expansion plans of the County. Bellows agreed with Kelley, adding that she would withdraw her objections to the lakeshore setback variance and noted for the record the major reduction of hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend approval of this application. The hardships involved in this matter are the small lot, maintaining the 50* setback from County Road 15, and the curvature of the lakeshore. Kelley commended the Borns for acquiring additional property and working with the hardcover on the property. Planning Commission member Brown stated that he objected to the side yard setback variance due to the fact that the subdivision was new. Kelley stated that the lot line could be gerrymandered to address that concern. Mabusth interjected that filing the division at the County may cause problems when dealing with a metes and bounds division. Kelley said that the proposed 24* was an improvement over the existing 12* from the house to the lot line. Hanson stated that the Borns had done everything possible, with the exception of buying the entire neighboring parcel, to work with the City and add on to his house. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1352 CHARLES SCHOEN 2430/2460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MIMUTBS OF TBB PIAimiHG CQMMISSIOH TIHG HOVBMBFR 21, 1988 ij:hiZOMING PILE #1352-SCHOEIi COHTIIH explained that Mr. Jacobs was purchasing 1.39 acres of land, of which 98% is dry. There were no conunents from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes®6, Nay*0, Motion passed. #1354 ROBERT MERKOff & JOHN CBARLTOM 2340/2380 ABIH6D0M NAT SUBDIVISIOE OF A LOT LIRE REARRAaGEMEBT PUBLIC HEARIHG 8:08 P.M. ~ 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the purpose of the lot line rearrangement was to expand the Merkow's front yard and allow their driveway to be located further west. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planninr Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to approve this application, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1351 ALFRED HARRISOH 1410 SHORBLIHE DRIVE VACATION OF BASBNEIIT PUBLIC BEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:27 P.M. Mr. Harrison was not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were requesting to vacate a portion of a drainage easement that was no longer needed due to pond reconstruction in 1985. The drainage easement was granted in 1982, based upon a pre-existing pond. Since that time, regrading of the pond occurred, and the drainage easement is no longer necessary. Chairman Kelley asked when the Harrison's would be moving into the house? Gaffron replied that he knew of no specific date, but work on the house had been going on for the last 6 months. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. NIiniTBS OF THE PLAHNIHG CONMISSIOH TIMG EOFBMBRR 21, 1988 II > IZ0HIH6 PILE #1351-HARR1S0N COirrilll It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1357 O. LEERY LEE VACATIOH OF PORTIOHS OF GARDEN LANE AND HIGHVIBif LANE POELIC HEARING Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Krautkremer was unable to attend the meeting. There were concerned parties present and Mabusth briefly explained the location of the alley. Mr. Kost was asked by the City to vacate the alley, because the City only wanted a 50*, rather than a 60* right-of-way. She further informed them that there would be a meeting, Tuesday, November 22, at 7:00 p.m. that would specifically deal with this subdivision. There would be no action taken at that meeting, it would be a question and answer session. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to table this item. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1358 TED FEIG t TIM JOHNSON 627/629 NORTH FERNDALE ROAD RENEWAL OF SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were*not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved a renewal and revision of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement approved originally in 1987, but which was never filed . The parties revised the lot line so as to better conform with the existing driveway and backyard areas. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=:6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1302 CITY OF OROHO CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT THIRD REVIEW City Engineer Cook indicated that following a meeting of the City and Crystal Bay Road residents, there were still areas of disagreement. He reported that there were two options for MI1I0¥BS OP TOE PIAJIWIirc COMMISSIOM MEBTIM6 IKJVEMBBR 21, 1988 ZOVIHG FILE 11302-CITY OP OROHO CONTIRl repairing the bank: Option 1 would involve replacing only damaged areas where the bank slid. This would be done by building a retaining wall and backfilling from the wall to the top of the road. The only way that sloping could be achieved would be to place fabric or other material to keep the soil from eroding away. The property owners would have to be involved with this option by taking responsibility for the repairs to the bank. The City would install posts and sheathing and backfill with sand. Minimal excavation of the road would be done, along with patching the edge of the road. Chairman Kelley asked why the City could not pay for the fill needed for the bank? Cook said that was another option, but the City may not wish to do so. Planning Commission member Bellows asked how much of the property in question was owned by the City? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the City’s prescriptive easement would only be over the actual road and gravel ditch area. Cook added that there was additional language that stated the City owned the road to whatever point was necessary to maintain drainage. Option 2 would allow for a portion of retaining wall to be exposed and would be located approximately 3 feet into the private property lines. In the other areas, there would be bushes and other vegetation, so a wall would be Installed as in option 1, but would only exist for the purpose of retaining the bank. However, there are cracks in the road which could allow water to seep in and cause the bank to shift. Chairman Kelley asked Engineer Cook as to which option would be best? Cook responded that either option would sufficiently remedy the problem. Kelley then asked which option the residents of Crystal Bay Road would prefer? Mr. Schibilla expressed the desire of the residents to proceed with option 2. Mr. Bill Wolfe stated that he had no problem with option 2, and commended Public Works Director Gerhardson and City Engineer Cook for their efforts. He added that the residents had just reviewed option 2 that evening. They wanted time to discuss and receive input from a landscape architect to achieve the most aesthetically pleasing effect as possible. Chairman Kelley inquired as to when the City would begin work. Gerhardson replied it would be in the Spring. Planning Commission member Bellows expressed her concern over the residents who chose not to replace the fill. Mr. Lee Erger explained that he owned the property where the most wall exposure would be; he would have difficulty attaining a 2:1 slope. He NIHUTBS OP THE PIAMNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HOyEMBBR 21, 1988 IJZONING PILE #1302-CITT OP ORONO CONTIN1 proposed to leave the wall exposed and plant vegetation on the other side to provide screening. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there should not be any controversy with this matter. The simple fact is that the City has a duty to repair a dangerous situation. She further stated that since the City did not own the property beyond the road and proposed retaining wallsr and the City did not cause the problem but was attempting to correct it, that the property owners, individually, should be responsible for restoration of their property. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether there would be a 1:1 slope on Mr. Erger's property. City Engineer Cook confirmed that, and added that the only way to do that would be to put fabric or some type of wall. Kelley asked how much wall would be exposed if there was a 3:1 slope? Cook replied 5* to 6*. Kelley asked what supported the bank before it was washed away? Cook answered that natural vegetation held it. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the workability of a 2:1 slope. Cook said that wculd work and would reduce the wall by a couple of feet. Ms. Connie Schibilla stated that despite the several meetings with City, she had nothing on paper indicating what exactly was being proposed. Chairman Kelley stated that he would have no problem recommending the 2:1 slope. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred. Bellows stated that easements necessary for construction of the wall was a technical issue that still needed to be addressed. She said that the Planning Commission should set a guideline as to how much wall can be exposed. The Planning Commission concurred that 5' maximum would be allowed. Mr. Erger then asked how much of a shoulder would be required from the road so that a guardrail would not be necessary. The residents concurred that they did not want a guardrail. Kelley asked what was needed to make the area safe? Cook said that there was no set guideline, but in a normal situation, a guardrail would be required. Anything over 30” would require a guardrail. Cohen explained to the residents the City's problem with liability should someone fall over the edge. Rich Anderson interjected that that was the controversey. Bellows said it was a matter of a guardrail or keeping the drop-off below 30”. She said that legally the City could install a guardrail into the pavement because of the drop-off currently being more than 30”. Cohen concurred. Mr. Erger suggested placing the posts 1' or 2' off of the shoulder so that they could prevent anything from going off of the edge. The Planning Commission as a whole agreed that would not meet the City's safety standards. Mr. Wolfe asked how the City could place a guardrail on milUTB8 OP THE PIAimiliG CQMMISSIOll MBETIHG 80VBMBBR 21, 1988 •J :i *Z0MIH6 FILE #1302~ClTy OP ORONO CONTINl private property without due compensation? Chairman Kelley advised the residents that they would have to deal with the City Council and City Attorney on those issues. Mr. Schupp said that he did not see how the City could interfere with his access to the lake. Kelley reiterated his position that the Planning Commission could not resolve that issue. He added that as far as the City's health, safety and welfare was concerned, the Planning Commission would recommend installation of a guardrail. The issue of any compensation to the property owners would have to be addressed by the City. Mr. Schupp asked what the height requirement was for a guardrail. Kelley informed him that any drop of 30" required a guardrail. Kelley reiterated his suggestion of taking the guardrail issue to the City Council, because the Planning Commission did not have the authority to resolve that issue. Planning Commission member Hanson interjected that for 18 months this public road has existed in an unsafe state. Kelley continued to say that the Planning Commission can only act on the City Ordinances. The residents were asking for a variance to the ordinance requiring a railing for a 5' drop. Kelley avowed himself to be a volunteer to his community and said that he could not consciously allow that kind of a drop-off without a guardrail. Mr. Erger said that he would not object to the "curb" going up if it was located at the very edge of the lot line, or even extending 3* or 4' if the City could determine how much slope would be involved. Kelley suggested that the City could protect itself and take more private property and have more road on the other side. Mr. Wolfe reiterated his desire to consult with a landscape architect. Mr. Erger asked if the City would allow the bank to be 1:1? City Engineer Cook said that it could be 1:1, but that may be very costly. A better solution may be to keep the bank at 30" or less. Mr. Schupp asked if proceeding with option 1 would alleviate the need for a guardrail? City Engineer Cook said that may or may not be the case. Rich Anderson suggested putting the bank back as it was so that a guardrail would not be necessary. Kelley and Cohen explained that it would be the property owner's financial obligation if they proceeded in that manner. Rich Anderson wanted the City to finance the project. Kelley again suggested taking these various proposals to the City Council. Mr. Erger asked about having 2' of shoulder from the blacktop to the guardrail and screening the guardrail from the front^with plantings. Bellows and Kelley pointed out the fact that snow plows may destroy the shrubs. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to table this matter. Kelley suggested that the property owners keep the City apprised of how they would like to proceed. Mr. Greg Long asked for a definition of guardrail. Kelley said that the City would provide the residents 8 MINUTES OF THE PUOIMING COMMISSION , IH:TING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE il302-CITT OP ORONO CONTINUED with that information. Once the residents have the guardrail information, it would be their responsibility to contact the City. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEW Mr. Paige was present for this second review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. Mr. Paige had previously received direction from the Planning Commission to revise the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Paige was now planning on replacing the existing garage structure with a larger garage and would require a 5' side yard setback variance. Gaffron explained that if the garage is moved back, as Mr. Paige agreed to do, then there would not be a need for a variance to the 30* street setback requirement for garage doors facing the street. Planning Commission member Hanson asked how Mr. Paige would access the proposed garage. Mr. Paige responded that he would access off of Navarre Avenue. Planning Commission member asked how'far from Navarre Avenue the new garage would be located. Mr. Paige indicated that it would be 30*. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, provided that the garage be located at least 30* from the west lot line and 5* from the south lot line. Mr. Paige inquired as to whether the 30* was from the foundation or roof? Gaffron clarified that it would be from the foundation and that the overhang could be a maximum of 1-1/2 feet. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1346 EINAR HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gatffron, this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council. The Council was concerned about the discovery of a sewer line that would be located 5* from the proposed storage garage. Public Works Director C»rhardson had indicated that the line would just be used for flushing downstream systems so the 5* setback would be sufficient. Mr. Hagberg had provided a list of items that required storage. Gaffron suggested that the lack of storage and the need for storage might be construed as a hardship. Mr. Hagberg*s present garage is located in such a way that adding to it would not be practical due to the topography of his land. HimiTBS OF THE PUUmiNG COMMISSION : IA:ITING HOVBMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE #1346-HEGBBRG CONTINUED Chairman Kelley asked if hardships were required, in light of the fact that Mr. Hagberg was reducing the hardcover? Gaffron explained that the Council was concerned about the lack of a hardship. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the amount of hardcover. Gaffron replied that without removals, there would be an increase in the 75* to 250* zone, as well as a slight increase in the 250* to 500* zone. Mr. Hagberg had indicated that he would remove a tin shed that is 101 s.f and remove 120 s.f. and 473 s.f. of rockbeds and plastic. Hardcover within the 0-75* zone would reduce from 18.6% to 17.7%. There would also be a significant reduction in hardcover within the 75- 250* zone. Kelley inquired as to the need to indicate hardships when hardcover is being reduced. Saffron reiterated that the Planning Commission had not provided any recommendation to the Council that hardcover be reduced. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application based upon the removal of hardcover as indicated. The hardships in this application are the lack of storage, and the topography of Mr. Hagberg*s lot. In addition, Mr. Hagberg will reduce the amount of hardcover on his property. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays»=0, Motion passed. §1353 JOHN L. FIEBELKORN 2730 SHADTWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - 8:05 P.N. Mr. and Mrs. Fiebelkorn were present, as was Mr. Larry Berg, an Attorney for the Fiebelkorns. In addition, Pat Anderson, a Landscape Architect, and Ken Adolph, an Engineer with Schoell & Madson, Inc . t^ere present. Mr. Berg began by admitting that there were serious problems involved with this application, but assured the Planning Commission that the Fiebelkorns did not intentionally disregard Orono*s ordinances. He said that the Fiebelkorns were new lakeshore homeowners and unaware of the required setbacks. A vinyl pool kit was purchased and installed primarily by Mr. Fiebelkorn. The pool was installed without permits and entirely withing the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. They are now requesting after-the-fact variances to allow it to remain. Mr. Berg stated that a plan had been developed that he believed would solve pre-existing drainage problems and reduce hardcover. Mr. Berg explained that a portion of the Fiebelkorn*s property was dredged, creating a lagoon. Planning Commission member Bellows asked when this dredging occurred- Mr. Berg replied that it occurred in the 1950*s. It was his belief that this land alteration was the hardship in this case. He reported that a neighboring property owner had a boathouse on the shoreline that was more obtrusive than the Fiebelkorn*s pool. Mr. MIHDTBS OF THE PlAMillBG COMMISSION A :TING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1353-FIEBELKORN CONTINUED Berg stated that the Fiebelkorns had spent $30,000.00 on the pool alone and would be willing to do whatever it would take so the pool could remain. Planning Commission member Hanson asked Mr. Piebelkorn who he hired to install the pool. Mr. Piebelkorn explained that he subcontracted for the installation of the pool. Bellows asked at what point the landscape architect was hired. Mr. Anderson replied that it was after the pool had been installed. Mr. Piebelkorn stated that a co-worker had sold him the pool kit and had hired someone unknown to Mr. Piebelkorn to dig the hole. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed that in his opinion it was inconceivable that the Piebelkorns were unaware of the need for a permit to install the pool. Mrs. Piebelkorn commented that they thought a concrete pool would require a permit, but the type of pool they had purchased would not, Mr. Berg reiterated the fact that a plan had been devised that would maybe allow the City to take a more positive look at the pool because of the existing problems it would alleviate. Chairman Kelley interjected that the pool itself was the only concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Berg expressed his understanding of how the City viewed certain accessory structures and that lakeshore averaging was often used. Mr. Berg asked that he be given the opportunity to explain the proposal developed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adolph before the Planning Commission determined that the pool be removed. Planning Commission member Bellows voiced her opinion that there was nothing that could be done to justify the major excavating and the gross violation of the hardcover and setback requirements. She added that the dredging that was done in the 1950*s did not constitute a hardship for the Piebelkorns. She felt that it was the Piebelkorns' responsibility to investigate the City's ordinances and rules pertaining to building. Cohen concurred that he would not be able to justify allowing such a structure to remain in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission member Hanson informed Mr. Berg that the Planning Commission was an advisory body. It would be much more effective to present their proposals to the City Council. Kelley concurred with Hanson's suggestion. Mr. Berg was persistent in asking that the Planning Commission hear their presentation. Kelley conceded, but asked that the presentation be brief. Mr. Adolph explained that the Piebelkorns would remove hardcover from the driveway and patio areas. The pool would be used as a detention basin for the runoff. An absorption system would be installed to handle the drainage. The pool would be large enough to handle the 100 year storm capacity. The runoff would be filtered so that only clean water would run into the soil and Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Anderson explained that landscaping would be used to aesthetically enhance the area MIHUTBS OF THE riAimilK: COMMISSIOH TING NOVEMBER 21r 1988 •J H I.ZONING PILE #1353-PIEBELKOEN CONTIN1 surrounding the pool. There would be a need for a sirall retaining wall on the lakeside edge of the pool patio. The retaining wall would also be utilized for the plantings. Mr. Anderson showed pictures of the pool from the lagoon to indicate that the pool was invisible from that point. Vegetation would also be used to screen the pool from view in those areas where it would be easily seen. Mrs. Fiebelkorn added that there was a possibility that 3/lOths of an acre be acquired from a neighbor. By so doing, it would alleviate the problem concerning the pool equipment storage shed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission member Hanson asked when the Fiebelkorns moved to Orono. Mrs. Fiebelkorn replied they had moved to Orono in 1985. Hanson explained the need to preserve the watershed of Lake Minnetonka. Mrs. Fiebelkorn commented that their lack of knowledge has been very embarrassing. She said that the neighbors had been asking about the outcome of the situation. Mr, Fiebelkorn stated that he was just attempting to ii^i’rrove his property. It was moved by Planning Commission member Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend denial of this application because of the lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1355 KENNETH J. NESSELS 1245 IfOODHILL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8sl0 P.M. - 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Planning Commission member Bellows asked why the point was made about the antenna being unrelated to the operation of Mr. Wessels' business. Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered that distinction was made because commercial transmitting cannot occur from residential property. She added that there had been a previous problem with a renter of an adjacent property who used his radio for business purposes. Orono citizen transmitting from hir property. Mr. Wessels Informed Bellows that amateur radio operation was a hobby of his. He would only transmit fcr a couple of hours on a weekend morning, as well as late in the evening and very early in the morning on weekdays. He assured the Planning Commission that the use would be entirely recreational, not commercial. Planning Commission member Brown asked for clarification 1^ MimiTBS OF THB PLIOINIIIG COMMISSION :i:-»triNG NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1355-WBSSBLS CONTIN1 regarding the problems of the previous radio operator. Mabusth explained that this person operated a security business from his home. He caused major interference with the neighbor's televisions, radios and telephones. Chairman Kelley observed that the same interference problems could occur with Mr. Wessels. Mabusth stated that in such cases, the FCC should be contacted. In addition, after a previous similar application, the City Council required that the name and number of the contact agency be given to the same parties that were notified about the conditional use permit application. The FCC, not the City, would handle complaints pertaining to interference. Bellows asked whether the conditional use permit could be revoked after a period of time if complaints of interference are received? Mabusth replied that such restrictions were possible, but in light of Federal regulations, the City could not restrict a resident from operating a radio transmitter and receiver. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether the problem of interference would actually be within the receiver, not the transmitter? Mr. Wessels confirmed that if his equipment is correctly set up, that would be the case. He added that there would be a possibility of problems due to a receiver, and stated that the FCC could confirm that. Any problems that may occur with a receiver could be rectified easily. Mr. Wessels infoimed the Planning Commission that he transmitted from his previous home at the Lake of the Isles. That area was very congested, but in the eight years he resided there, he had no interference problems. Planning Commission member Bellows asked whether it was Mr. Weasels intention to raise and lower the antenna? Mr. Wessels explained that the location of the antenna would be in a heavily wooded area on his property. He said he could erect a free standing antenna that would require guy wires. The proposed tower could be either at a fixed height right above the tree line, or have a raising/lowering capability. Mr. Wessels referred to a nationwide FCC regulation, PRDl, that states that the City could not stop aii amateur radio operator from erecting a tower. Mr. Dick Raiche, a neighboring pro^c-ity owner, inquired as to the proposed location of the towei? Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that the structure would have to meet the height limitations and meet the required setback from the boundary lines. Mr. Wessels stated that he would be willing to locate the tower anywhere on the lot. Mr. Raiche stated that he did not want to see the structure from his property. Mr. Raiche further commeilted that he had talked with Lake of the Isle neighbors of Mr. Wessels, most of whoir. did not know Mr. Wessels had a tower. MIVUTBS OF THB PUUnilHG USSIOH !TIHG HOVBMB8R 21, 1988 ZOHIHG PILE #1355>NBSSBLS COHTIIH Ms. Marsha Rokker 180 Orono Orchard Road, informed the Planning Commission of the circumstances involving Mr. Peterson's radio operation. She said that it became quite a safety factor when another resident in the area could not use her phone to call for a medical emergency. She said that the neighbors had registered thoir complaints with the FCC. However, the FCC dealt with Mr. Peterson directly, rather than keeping the residents apprised of their actions. Chairman Kelley suggested reviewing the conditional use permit after 6 months. Kelley also asked if Mr. Wessels had protection for the tower that would prohibit children from climbing the tower. Mabusth reported that the City was recommending "anti-climb" sections be installed for that purpose. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this item subject to a review 6 months from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and Mr. Wessels providing the City with phone numbers so he can be accessible if necessary. In addition, the City must be satisfied that the tower will not be a safety hazard. The structure must be placed in the wooded area within 1C of the location indicated in the application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays*0, Motion passed. fl356 GERALD T. NCCOORTNEY 1055 WEST FERMDALE ROAD RENBHAL VARIAHCES PUBLIC BEARING* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1356, renewal of variances, for Gerald T. McCourtney. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF 1989 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to approve the 1989 Schedule of Planning Commission Meetings. Motion, Ayes«»6, Nays=0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 17, 1988 MINUTES* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to approve the Minutes of the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays=0, Motion passed. CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 19, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to cancel the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for December 19, 1988. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays*0, Motion passed. MIVUTBS OP TBB PIANIilliG COMNISSIOH TIMG NOVBNBBR 21, 1988 PLMiMlMG CONMISSIOll RSPRBSEBTATIVB It was agreed that Planning Connission member, Maureen Bellows, would represent the Planning Commission at the December 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. ADJOORiMBHT The November 21, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.