08/11/1999 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Nordness noted there is a discrepancy between the DNR and County regarding the high -water mark. The DNR has been asked to identify the high -water point. The church is looking into a filtration system and ways to make the project environmentally friendly. The project is a church and will be run as a church. The original plan that was submitted was measured 150' back from the shoreline. Mr. Hawkins came forward and showed a map of ordinary high -water level defined by the State noting it does not take you to the edge like the City ordinance does. The City is not obligated to go by the DNR's measurements. Mr. Johnson stated he is concerned that a number of remarks this evening have been based on a site plan that is no longer valid. He asked how many changes will be made to the new plan. Mr. Smyser advised the number of changes are unknown at t ; t. The primary issue is the ordinary high -water point. Many of the concerns are eral ncerns. The size of the church will be determined by the maximum covera to t, onstruction approval. The lighting will be carefully reviewed by ere is no intention of installing City sewer in the area. He suggested Mr. r.�� ange a neighborhood meeting to discuss the residents' concerns. Mr. Nordness stated he will set up a neig rho` meeting. He noted there is nothing he can do about the high -water mark. Mr. Smyser advised the DNR h. t ate`' " "' rk on where the ordinary high -water mark is. Mr. Johnson made a Planning & Zoning Bo 0. ntinue the public hearing to the September 8, 1999, eting, and was supported by Ms. Carlson. Motion carried 5- Mr. Dunn stated his ., arks are neutral regarding the project. The Board will have to vote on the project a "er determining if it meets the conditions of the ordinance. The City Council will make the final decision. He asked the residents to keep in mind that eventually the area will have City sewer and water and could be rezoned residential single family homes. He suggested the Planning & Zoning Board deviate from the standard practice of receiving the staff report only a few days before asked to vote. He stated he would like to receive the report no less than two weeks prior to voting on the project. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to insist that the Planning & Zoning Board members have a minimum of two weeks prior to voting, to review the project and staff report. Mr. Smyser advised because of the legalities and deadlines, putting out the staff report and recommendation two weeks prior to the vote is not possible. The project will have to be extended another 60 days.