Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/2000 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE `. TIME START: TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRES Corson, Johnson, Lane, Rafferj and Schaps (arrived at 7;13 u.m. �ych "iffy Planner Sniyser; P annm- gland; City Engineer Powell' I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Lane called the Lino Lakes Pla ing Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., June 14, 2000. • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Mr. Johnson made a MOTI the Lino Lakes Planning carried 4 -0 -1 (Lane). III. APPROVAL 0 Mr. Smyser request the addition of Item VI. B., State Planning Conference. The agenda was approved as amended. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Lane declared open mike open at 6:34 p.m. p ® - the minutes of the May 10, 2000, meeting of rig Board, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion Dave Baumbeck, 626 Main Street, asked if there have been any changes to the Highland Meadows project. Mr. Smyser stated the project will be developed as approved and he is not aware of any changes. • No one else was present for open mike. Vice Chair Lane closed open mike at 6:36 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. David Snell, 600 62' Street, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by Dave Snell for a minor subdivision and variance to split 10 acres from the 37.48 -acre parcel at 600 62nd Street. The site is zoned Rural and guided for rural development through 2020 in the draft comprehensive plan. The proposed parcel would have 230' of width on 62nd Street. According to the Zoning Ordinance, parcels in the Rural zoning district must have a minimum of 330' of lot width. Therefore, a variance for 120' in lot width is being requested. The Ordinance also provides language indicating that 20% of the lot area must be upland. The survey document indicates that 2.35 acres are wetland leaving 7.65 acres of upland. Staff presented the findings of fact that must be made for consideration of a variance. It was noted that Mr. Snell believes a hardship exists since ther drainfield for the dwelling at 600 62nd Street between the limits the available width of the new parcel. The prope contains considerable wetland which limits usability extend West Shadow Lake Drive and described the Staff believes a hardship to the land does and location of the septic system and drai on 62nd Street that are less than 330' i proposed subdivision does meet th Board agrees that the variance c approval of the minor subdiv. 1. Additional righ Street. Current require an of right -of- ptic system and he new parcel that existing home of the future plans to ignment. figuration of the wetland area . There are eleven (11) existing lots d less than 10 acres in size. The requirement. If the Planning & Zoning et in this case, staff would recommend iance with the following conditions: 1 be dedicated for the future reconstruction of 62nd e is 16.5' of right -of -way from the centerline, the City would 3.5' along the entire frontage of both parcels to provide 40' 2nd Street is classified as a State Aid Route with an 80' required rig f -way. 2. Any construc on on the 10 acre parcel shall be so located to avoid the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive as determined by the City Engineer. 3. Park dedication shall be collected as required in the Subdivision Ordinance. In response to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Powell advised of the future plans for the extension of County Road J and desire to not create an off - aligned intersection at 62nd Street and West Shadow Lake Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he does not want to commit the City to construction of that particular alignment due to locations of wetlands. Mr. Powell explained how the road alignment could be shifted somewhat. Mr. Corson recommended Condition 2 be reworded to state: 2. "Any construction on the 10 acre parcel shall be so located at least 100 feet from the west property line to avoid the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive as determined by the City Engineer." • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 3 Staff and the Board agreed to this amendment. Mr. Smyser recommended Condition 1 be amended to state: 1. "The new survey showing that additional right -of -way dedication be submitted prior to Council consideration." The Board agreed to this amendment. Mark Kemper, land surveyor representing the applicant, stated he has been employed to create this map and offered to answer questions. He stated they are aware of the recommended conditions of approval as amended. David Snell, applicant, stated his only concern is that the Cit road on the west side of the property but that is the most pr the house. He stated he can move the house 100 feet fr location closer to the west property line. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the Snell to split 10 acres from the 37.48 acre conditions contained in the staff report, a Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. B. Gar Uhde 265 A ollo to locate the future ation to construct de but prefers a bdi sion and variance for David 2 °d Street subject to the above, and was supported by Mr. Staff presented the applic Business Center that w development proposal however, the lan subdivision with t r Subdivision ary Uhde for a minor subdivision in the Apollo eight (8) acre parcel for future development. A e works and may be available for review in July or August, duled sooner. Staff recommended approval of the minor ng conditions: 1. Drainage and tility easements are provided according to City Ordinance and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. An access agreement shall be provided for the easterly driveway. 3. Park dedication shall be required subject to the Park Dedication Ordinance. In response to Mr. Rafferty, Ms. Wyland advised how the park dedication fee is calculated. Mr. Johnson asked if this use will need access from Apollo Court. Ms. Wyland answered affirmatively. Mr. Johnson asked if there is a drainage easement on Parcel E. Ms. Wyland stated the drawing being displayed identifies existing contours. Mr. Powell stated the drawing shows a drainage area that would be incorporated into the site improvements of Parcel E and additional detail will be available when the site plan is considered. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Gary Uhde that would create an eight (8) acre parcel in the Apollo Business Center for future development subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. C. Gary Uhde, 295 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by Gary Uhde for a minor subdivision in the Apollo Business Center that would create a four (4) acre parcel (Parcel D) just west of the proposed H & L Mesabi site. A site plan review is anticipated for review in July or August, however, the anticipated closing on the property is scheduled prior to that time. Thus, the minor subdivision request. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements are provided subject t. +.royal of the City Engineer. 2. A shared driveway agreement shall be provided R approval of the City Engineer. 3. Park dedication shall be required based on t P cation Ordinance. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve would create a four (4) acre parcel (Parce the proposed H & L Mesabi site subje was supported by Mr. Corson. Mo, D. PUBLIC HEARIN Apollo Business Center, ,Co ivision for Gary Uhde that Apollo Business Center just west of itions contained in the staff report and n continue to July 12, 2000) Gary Uhde, nal Use Permit — Dirt Stockpile Staff recommended the stockpiling dirt b hearing on the Gary Uhde conditional use permit for continued to the July 12, 2000 meeting. Vice Chair Lane de 4 ed the public hearing opened at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Powell stated the CUP is to accommodate the importing of material for future site development via grading activities. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the July 12, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. E. Bluebill Ponds, Main Street, Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application by Bluebill Ponds for preliminary plat approval. The site is on the south side of Main Street across from Wood Duck Trail and Bluebill Lane. Staff advised the outstanding issue was the access to Main Street, however Heritage Development has reached an agreement with the House of Praise Church to allow Wood Duck Trail to extend south of Main Street, creating a full access intersection. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 5 Staff reviewed the proposed lot configuration of this 36.76 acre parcel to create 77 single family lots. The location of cul -de -sacs was pointed out and a review provided of the transportation and access issues, utilities, parks, and trails. Chair Schaps arrived at 7:13 p.m. Staff also noted the recommendation of the Environmental Board for a 50 -foot buffer around the forest on the east edge of the site, infiltration and overland runoff design where possible, open spaces to be incorporated into the design, use of native vegetation, a buffer around the wetland, and deep tilling of topsoil. Staff explained that while some of these recommendations were included in the preliminary plat consideration, some were found impractical and not included. Staff recommended approval of the Bluebill Ponds Prelimin m '= with the following conditions: 1. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershe•Q `t be obtained prior to any site grading. 2. Utility, grading, and drainage plans must o rov from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District prior to 3. The City Engineer's comments in his mo'' „June 1, 2000 must be addressed to his satisfaction prior to site grading. 4. The tree preservation plan shal i according to the City Environmental Specialist memo of 6/1/00 • 'o �. r e�_'.ding. 5. Plantings around wetlan. a : + �o tF> shall be as recommended by the City Environmental Specia ' t all be included in the development agreement. 6. The developer muse • ®n ed approvals from Anoka County for access to Main Street and work in t-of-way. 7. Park dedicate •he of a cash payment shall be required as recommended by the Park Boar Mr. Corson noted on of to the south has no street access and the other has the road extended only one -half way through. He asked if it would be difficult to extend it in the future. Mr. Smyser stated the property owner to the southwest of that area was not interested in extending the road and the adjacent property owner to the east indicated interest to have the road extended only one -half way through their lot. Mr. Corson asked if trails will be constructed in this project. Mr. Smyser stated there has been extensive discussions held on that matter and staff does not believe it is appropriate to create trails since there are no scenic amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle access can be accommodated in the roadway on this project. Mr. Schilling asked if discussion occurred about isolating the church property from this development. Mr. Smyser stated the church has not indicated interest in that option. If it becomes an issue in the future, it can be addressed. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 6 Ms. Lane stated she is more supportive of this design, noting the number of units has also been reduced. Chair Schaps asked if staff is confident this project will be done satisfactorily. Mr. Powell noted the detailed comments made by staff and stated staff is satisfied they can be met with a plan revision. Chair Schaps requested public input. Dave Bombeck, 626 Main Street, stated the last proposal that was presented raised a lot of residential concerns about this layout including concern for the wetlands, areas of standing water, drainage, access to Main Street, and need for park space. He pointed out the location of his property and stated he wants to be assured he will not be impacted and the road will stay a dead end forever, Mr. Powell stated it is probably not the Council's desire to extend the road to the east but it is expected the road w' point in the future. Mr. Bombeck asked if that decision remains w Council can initiate a project or eminent do unless the residents initiate the request. Ms. Lane asked about the accomm future. Mr. Powell explained w full intersection. Ms. Lane Street as well. Mr. Powel t demnation to to the east at some Mr owell stated only the City oes not think that will occur Mr. Bombeck asked if stated in the futur intersection. ebill Lane to continue south in the of anticipate that Bluebill Lane will be a ounty probably wants to limit access to Main at is correct. ill be a four way stop at Wood Duck Trail. Mr. Powell will be broken at that point and it will be a signalized Mr. Bombeck asked the speed limit of Main Street can be lowered. Mr. Powell explained the process to follow if the residents want a traffic study conducted by the County and cautioned that the study can also result in an increase to the speed limit. Mr. Bombeck stated when this project was first presented, many concerned residents were present at the meeting. He stated he is not aware of any other meetings being held and tonight there is no one in attendance. He restated the importance of a park which has now been removed from the project. Mr. Bombeck stated he would appreciate it if this consideration is tabled so more residents can attend. Mr. Powell advised of the Rice Creek Watershed District review. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Bombeck was invited to the meeting on the roadway along Mar Don Acres where the park issue was addressed and it was indicated at that meeting that if • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 7 • the road was included, the park land would be lost. He noted the location of the school where the speed limit is reduced when children are present. • Mr. Baumbeck asked what size of property was sold to the City for park and what it cost. Ms. Wyland stated the Highland Meadows West park dedication was based on the developable amount of land and was the maximum amount the City could take. She stated the Bluebill Ponds park dedication is a 10% cash dedication based on what they paid for the land. Mr. Smyser estimated the Bluebill Ponds park dedication will be $89,000 which will be used to develop the Highland Meadows West park. Timothy Anderson, resident, stated he finds it hard to believe a project of this magnitude has no location for a park and suggested the City has made an exception for this developer. He stated he would support land dedication over <" '° . ayment. Mr. Anderson stated he has been told by staff that his fence and ble ,w of trees would be relocated if the road is constructed. He requested assure toccur if the development moves forward. Mr. Anderson asked if all the proper procedur- v- cued. Chair Schaps stated the proper procedures have been followed. Mr der ®quested copies of all of those documents so he can be better informed. Mr. Anderson noted this is a differ with cul -de -sacs. He suggested this layout is to maximize the numb Mr. Rafferty stated he ap. -c ' eighborhood involvement and has only served on the Board since January b bs „-d the developers have worked hard to be within the City's guidelines. Ho e remains concerned about parks and asked where the park dedication fee wi r. Smyser displayed a map identifying the location of the park in Highlands West and advised there is no funding to develop that park. Thus, the recomme ton of the Park Board to use the Bluebill Ponds park dedication fee to develop this p Mr. Rafferty asked if the City would value the cash fee as being more than if the land would be dedicated. Mr. Smyser noted there are other parks that have been dedicated but since the City does not have funding to develop them, they remain undeveloped. In this case, the park dedication fee from Bluebill Ponds can be used to develop this 4 plus acre Highland Meadows West park. Mr. Anderson stated it has been his experience that developers have to dedicate land and pay cash. He asked why both are not required in Lino Lakes and suggested that land can be found in Bluebill Ponds to "piggy back" with the Highland Meadows West park. He asked what the value of land would be when compared to a park dedication fee of $89,000. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 8 Chair Schaps stated he thinks in Lino Lakes it has always been a land dedication or dedication fee and he is unaware of other communities that charge both. He explained the Park Board is charged with evaluating this question and that group of volunteers is satisfied that this plan is appropriate. He emphasized that there is no City funding to develop the park property in Highland Meadows West. Mr. Anderson asked if Lois Lane will never be extended or if it will circumvent that park land. Mr. Powell reviewed the alignment of Street A, noting the south side would catch the extreme north 30 feet of the park so that would have to be considered if development to the east were to occur. Mr. Anderson stated the company he works for provides for land and cash park dedication and he knows the Centennial Little League contributes funds for park field development. He suggested the City work with athletic community organizations such as that to obtain funding. Chair Schaps thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments the upcoming bond referendum for the development fields. Ms. Lane stated her impression that Lino L without getting to the point of discouragi court finding that a 10% park dedicat. the City's standard. Ms. Lane made a MOTION the conditions contained i i t carried 6 -0. d his involvement in ty sports complex and all they can for park dedication ment. Mr. Smyser reviewed a past nt is reasonable, which is the basis for v e preliminary plat of Bluebill Ponds subject to report, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion F. PUBLICS (Continuation). Town Center Development Standards Chair Schaps dec1 the continued public hearing reopened at 8:05 p.m. and requested public input. Mr. Smyser reviewed staff's efforts to discuss the standard with the public and developers and requested the public hearing be continued to July 12, 2000. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing to be continued to the July 12, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meeting. G. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 09 - 00, Tree Preservation Ordinance Staff presented the draft Tree Preservation Plan and draft Ordinance 09 - 00 and explained it will codify and clarify tree preservation requirements for private development in one ordinance, require a tree preservation plan and clearly describe the elements of such a plan, and establish a clearly defined tree replacement ratio which will act as an incentive to minimize tree loss. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 9 Julie Farnham, TKDA, noted the revisions since the last discussion and offered to answer questions. Chair Schaps requested comment on Richard Carlson's letter of June 7, 2000. Ms. Farnham stated they reviewed the letter and noted this plan only applies to private property. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the situation should a trail be required and result in the loss of a tree. Ms. Farnham stated if the trail is within the private development, any significant tree that would be lost should be counted. She explained the intent is that the applicant would work with staff to minimize tree loss and if a trail is required by the City, she expects the City would work to minimize tree loss as well. She stated any tree loss within a private development would be included as part of th, otal of loss. However, the City would have the ability to waive those tiori quirements. Mr. Smyser explained the only activity of the develo • °t rastructure such as roads, trails, and wetland mitigation, noting the de • p • • not build the actual houses. Thus, if those infrastructure activities ons ered there would be no need for a tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Powell stated for any contractor i : vements, a letter of credit is required and advised of the percentages re w Mr. Schilling asked about th s • uiring a performance bond. Mr. Powell advised that the City's attorney ha nit d several times that a letter of credit is easier for the City to implement tha .' • r ce bond to assure the work is completed. Mr. Smyser note d ordinance is simply placing into writing the City's policies that are al fect regarding financial securities. Mr. Corson raised a s enario of a project impacting different varieties of trees and noted that poplar trees cannot be replaced by poplar trees, or cottonwood trees with cottonwood trees. Ms. Farnham noted the ordinance language identifying trees to avoid as well as the alternative allowed for the City to wave that requirement and allow flexibility. In response to Mr. Corson, Ms. Farnham noted that off site mitigation has been discussed. However, the City Attorney was uncomfortable with requiring off -site mitigation so the language was revised to require that replacement trees must be placed on the same site. She stated that perhaps language should be considered to address such a unique situation where there is not a location for replacement trees. Mr. Corson asked if the City has considered allowing a 28 foot wide road in some situations. Mr. Powell stated Bluebill Ponds, as proposed, has a 28 foot back -to -back roadway and the City standard is 32 feet. He explained that was considered to reduce Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 10 impervious surface, runoff, impact, and to satisfy the Watershed District issues. Mr. Powell noted that custom grading is also considered to lessen impact. Ms. Lane asked how this tree preservation plan originated. Mr. Smyser explained there is nothing on the books to address tree loss or replacement so it is being handled somewhat arbitrarily. Since there was no set standard, developers raised some concerns and staff felt there was a need to have a clearly written policy. Mr. Rafferty stated his support for this initiative and belief that a house should be sited considering placement of the trees to minimize impact. Ms. Lane asked if just developers or all individuals are required to comply with these requirements. Ms. Farnham reviewed the process that would be followed. Ms. Lane noted that sometimes buildings are placed in a less •le location to save trees and then a storm occurs which removes those trees, le . g th •uilding in the less desirable location. She stated she is concerned this wil a property owner's rights and finds it to be cumbersome in being placed � di •" al requirement. She stated she does not support clear cutting but believ reserve trees whenever possible. Ms. Lane expressed concern with ov do y the City. Mr. Smyser noted the language on Page 5 single family lots and general develo approaches. Chair Schaps noted that staff they do not support the lo there is no language in the language also does Schaps suggested cannot and will no , indicating this ordinances addressed ing there are two completely different he authority to not issue a building peimit if he building or impact to trees. Mr. Smyser stated finance providing staff with that authority. He noted uire tree replacement for single family homes. Chair e be amended to state what staff has indicated, that they a single family home permit from being issued on that basis. Ms. Farnham review decision. the process available for the property owner to appeal staff's Mr. Rafferty commented on the importance of assuring the ordinance addresses the spirit of tree preservation without creating loopholes. Mr. Johnson stated it sounds like there is some potential for misunderstanding of the ordinance requirements. He stated he supports the purpose but thinks it may be justifiable to expand Section 3A to clarify for the individual homeowners just what it involves and does not compel them to do. Mr. Corson stated his support for an appeal process and suggested that process be expedited. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 11 Ms. Lane stated the Board does not look favorably on variances without proven hardships. She suggested, perhaps, the term "modification" is more appropriate than the term "variance." Mr. Johnson noted there would not be any variance requests from individual home owners and the issues with developers should be addressed during their development process. Mr. Smyser stated it is correct that the single family property would not be brought into this process. However, the single family property owner would be asked what their plans are so the City Forester can advise them what will occur. He stated if the language is not clear, staff can modify it. Chair Schaps asked if there is also concern about barren lands with no trees. Ms. Farnham stated that issue will be addressed with the Landsca nance. Mr. Rafferty reviewed a comment made in Mr. Carlson have been stripped of trees by property owners for f development and the option of requiring a minimu each residential lot. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing 8:45 p.m. ssing open acres that er reasons prior to trees to be planted on John Johnson, engineer and planni . epresenting Mr. Uhde, stated they are encouraged by the City undert • i ult topic but believe more flexibility is needed. He stated their sup nsideration so they have time for further study and submittal of written c a Mr. Johnson stated they are developing a parcel with a wooded area and wet • u i oting the options on what can be done are limited to begin with and adding .reservation requirement may reach a point that the property is no longer feast opment. He noted if the developer does not clear a building pad and it is done r^� i der, tree replacement is not required. Mr. Smyser stated the is correct. Mr. Corson stated this is a good point to consider and asked how issues of drainage and balancing the project elevations will be addressed. Mr. Powell explained that a grading plan would still be part of the process and the house pads are required to be identified on the site plan Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to July 12, 2000, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 12 H. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 10 — 00, PCS Tower Moratorium Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 8:52 p.m. Staff explained that on May 22, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution #00 - 67 directing staff to initiate the process for adopting a moratorium on new towers for personal wireless services. The resolution also set a public hearing for the meeting tonight. Staff presented the draft ordinance and explained staff is working with surrounding communities in an attempt to identify potential tower locations and minimize the number of towers. The intent is to include tower location planning in the larger land use planning of the City to ensure: 1. Consistency with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Compatibility with present and future land use 3. That official controls and performance stand equate. Staff recommended approval of the draft ordinance. Chair Schaps asked if consideration of a morat regulates the City's ability to act on towers City Attorney who indicated the City has keep proceeding and making progress Mr. Johnson asked if the curren explained the current ordin constructed but it has bee would allow for the pr ola the federal law which stated he discussed this with the t to establish the moratorium but must olete and needs to be revised. Mr. Smyser d zoning districts where towers can be ere is a possibility the City is not providing sites that sonal wireless service. Ms. Lane asked w l • e provisions made for tower removal when it is abandoned and no longer nee • myser stated they have talked about that aspect and it will not be the City's res nsibility to maintain or remove towers. He stated if there is no market to support the antennas, there will be no need for the towers and the land will be valuable for development of another use. However, if on City property, he would support lease language to address abandonment. Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:04 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve Ordinance 10 - 00, establishing a moratorium on new PCS towers and direct staff to forward it to City Council, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. • • • 1 Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 13 • VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS • • A. Planning & Zoning Representative to Community Service Award Nominating Committee Staff explained the Community Service Award is designed to recognize individuals who have made a significant contribution(s) to the community. The City Council has asked the Planning & Zoning Board to appoint a representative. Mr. Rafferty volunteered to serve as the representative and Ms. Lane volunteered to serve as the alternate. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to appoint Mr. Rafferty as the representative and Ms. Lane as the alternate to represent the Planning & Zoning Board on munity Service Award Nominating Committee, and was supported by Mr. on. . otion carried 6 -0. B. State Planning Conference Mr. Smyser presented details of the upcoming include the 2000 Upper Midwest Regional 22, 2000, in Duluth, Minnesota. He advi encouraged participation. C. EDAC Update Mr. Johnson advised the Development Standard recommendation. VII. ADJOURNMEN Conference which will ference to be held September 20- anning Commissioners can attend and aying close attention to the Town Center ding another meeting, and will provide a Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.