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

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 8 of the management plan, which was being reviewed by various governmental agencies. She noted they would have professionals manage this area. She handed out a copy of the draft of the management plan to staff to make a part of the City's file. Dave Scheer, Eagle Brook Church, stated they had met with Anoka County Parks and they were developing a plan to cultivate the rye grass down and recultivating it with more natural grass. He indicated they had every intention of including the area Mr. Marier was concerned about. Ms. Bauman noted they were also working with an agency regarding the heron nesting. Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, stated she was an environmental board member, but she was speaking as a citizen. She indicated she was hoping the Church's environmental committee would include the extra three acres into the conservation plan. She stated it was the Church's plan to use the three acres as a teaching area for children. However, she noted this activity would disturb the herons because this is where they gathered their nesting materials and it was imperative that it was not disturbed, even unintentionally. She expressed concern about the 50 -foot building with lights. She stated the lights would disrupt the life cycles of the wildlife in the area. She expressed concern about being unable to see the night sky. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated her comments, but noted it appeared the church was trying to find ways to deal with these issues, but are said to be coming up short by three acres. He asked if she were the owner of the property, what would she think after spending a lot of money on this property, and then not being able to develop it. He acknowledged that this area was important for the heron population. He stated he believed the church was trying to work everything out. He noted it appeared to him that the City's guidelines were that development was going to happen at some point and there was nothing that could be done about it. He asked if there was not some common ground. He noted the church appeared to be at least trying. Ms. Grundhofer stated all the Environmental Board could do was give recommendations to the Council and it was up to Council to either accept or reject their recommendations. Mr. Rafferty stated it was not staff's job to not have a project move forward. It was staff's job to present the facts, and it was up to Council to eventually approve or disapprove the project. He stated he was not saying he was or was not voting for the project, but he believed staff had a responsibility to bring forward the facts. He noted there had to be a give and take in this and while the best environmental thing would be for nothing to happen, this was not realistic. Ms. Grundhofer asked the Board to listen to the citizens, who had lived in the area for many years. She stated the residents wanted to help the area and the residents were looking to the Board for help. She stated sometimes professional specialists did not take enough time on projects to see the total impact. She asked them to listen to the citizens and their concerns. DRAFT MINUTES • • •