12/10/2003 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle clarified it was the size of the pi pe and not the flowage. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. Mr. Hyden asked if the pipe was at maximum flow all year. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. Mr. Hyden asked if the pipe went to maxi mum flow, would that change the amount of water going through the pipe. Mr. Smyser re plied the pipe had capacity for more flow and this project did not have an effect on it. He stated if someone was changing something upstream, it would change the flow , but this project would not change it. Mr. Hyden asked who ultimately would be re sponsible if the calculations were wrong. Mr. Smyser replied that would have to be dete rmined as to what the cause was. He noted there might be changes downstream or upstream, but that does not mean this project changed the flow. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Katherine Leonidas, BWBR Architects, stated they had met with the neighbors and the result of that was some design changes. She believed the neighborhood meeting was successful. She showed the primary cha nges, which included the roadway moving 200 feet along the southern property line. She noted additional screening was added to the north, as well as screening along road 21. She summarized the hours of operation. She asked them to keep it in mind that this church would operate on two campuses. She summarized how they would prepare for crim e control. She noted it was still being discussed about the lighting at the two intersections to the ea st. She summarized the site lighting for the Board. She noted the lighti ng was identical to the lighting around City Hall. She indicated they would have some lighting in the back for security and some lighting around the drop off canopy. She noted the spire would be lit with the same fixture lighting the flag outside of City Hall. With respect to snow removal, there was a concern that they not be pushing snow into ne ighbor’s yards. She stated the church had met with the landscaping contractor and summar ized where the snow would be placed, all of it on pervious soil. She stated the desi gn of Ditch 72 would not change the drainage and the area it served. She asked her septic design engineer and traffic consultant to address the septic design a nd traffic flow concerns. Peter Miller, Ecosystems Engineering, El k River, Minnesota, noted they had vast experience regarding septic desi gns. He noted they have b een involved in this project since 2002 and they had done a preliminary inve stigation of the soils and had submitted a preliminary report. He noted Anoka Count y would be handling the permitting of the system. He stated they had submitted a pe rmitting process to Anoka County and they had approved their plans. He stated Anoka County had approved their submittal. He summarized the project for the Board. He not ed the monitoring system consisted of a dedicated phone line so the monitor of the system had on-line instant access to the system. He stated Anoka County had agreed with the design and it was appropriate for the site, but they did have a concern about the length of the sewer line and the possibility of freezing. He informed the Board as to how they would address those concerns,