11-07-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1989 PAGE 2 6. Petition Re: Ultra Fights Ron Smith, 9999 loth St., submitted a petition with 19 signatures of residents asking the Council to ban the ultra lights at the Northern Sun Air Park. Smith stated they are very noisy, has seen them chase geese on Eagle Point Lake and-.hava-4ecome dangerously close to power lines and homes. Boris Popov, who operates Northern Sun Ultra Lights, 9450 Hudson Boulevard, stated only the FAA has authority to ban anything in the air space above Lake Elmo. Bob Landberg, President of the Minnesota Ultra Light Assoc., said his organization has practiced self -•regulation to the point of grounding some pilots. Landberg pledge his association's continued support in trying to solve the problems in Lake Elmo. City Administrator Morrison had talked to an FAA official who advised ultra light pilots must maintain an altitude of no less than 500 feet over "unoccupied territory", and 1,000 feet over "congested areas". Morrison stated she will submit a recommendation to the Council after consulting with the FAA, the MN Ultra Light Association, and the complaining residents. M/S/P Moe/Hunt - resolved that the Council hereby requests that the Administrator advise the FAA of the concerns and petition and request the FAA work with Northern Sun Air Park, 9450 Hudson Blvd, to address residents' concern and give copies of results to Ron Smith, 9999 loth Street and Robert Landberg, President of Ultralights Assoc. (Motion carried 4-0). 7. PLANNING/LAND USE/ZONING: A. Large Lot Subdivision: Will Stenzel The Planning Commission reviewed. a large lot subdivision concept proposed. by Will Stenzel at their August 28, 1989 meeting. Mr. Stenzel has now amended his application from the 3-lot subdivision to a 2-lot subdivision of a parcel of land. he proposes to purchase from George and Lorraine Krueger and would use a common driveway for the two parcels. Four zoning code variances are requested with this proposal: (1) Variance to the required 300' of frontage on a public road for Parcel A, (2) Variance to the required 300' of frontage on a public road for Parcel B, (3) Variance to the permitted 4:1 lot -•size ratio for Parcel A; and (4) Variance to allow a private road for ingress/egress for Parcel B. Will Stenzel requested a multi -use driveway, not a private driveway, and asked the Council to change the ordinance because he understands there are other driveways in the City used as a multi -use driveway. Stenzel. indicated the hardship was, with 300 feet of road fonta.ge, you cannot get to the back two parcels. He added that the cost ($94,000) of a new road would be a burden on him. At their meeting of October 23, 1989, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 recommmending denial due to the lack of a proven hardship for the four identified variances.