Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2000 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES eptem ber 13, 2 arson, Jo on Lane, Rafferty,.Seha illn.. ann; ser an ssisat to the I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning an p.m., September 13, 2000. • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August • Ms. Lane made a MOTION to ap Lino Lakes Planning and Zon' carried 5 -0 -1 (Johnson abst III. APPROVAL OF A d meeting to order at 6:30 nutes of the August 9, 2000, meeting of the an was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion e to is absence at that meeting). Mr. Smyser state t for Agenda Item V.B, Oasis Market, is making significant changes ` e proposal so staff recommends that item be removed from the agenda. The agenda was approved as revised. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for Open Mike. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Mark Pariseau, 6101 Centerville Road, Variance Staff presented the application by Mark Pariseau requesting a variance to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage 21.5 feet from the front property line, 2.5 feet behind the existing home. The property is zoned Rural and located on a collector roadway requiring a front setback of 40 feet. The lot is considered to be a pre- existing non - conforming lot of record due to the front setback and the lot size which is approximately 150 feet by 227 feet (10 -acre minimum required). Staff noted the four other properties west of this site that are also less than ten acres in size with varied front setbacks. Staff presented the findings of fact which must be met when considering a request for a variance and noted there are some hardships involved in this case as the applicant has a mound type septic system behi home with a slight drainage swale in front of the system. Locating the garage to the setback requirement may hamper this drainage swale and place o close to the septic system. Staff has received a letter from the adjoinin er indicating no objection to the variance requested. In review of this request, staff suggested loc � posed garage five feet from the storage shed, thus maintaining a setback t from the front property line. This would require approval of a variance f eet': •m the 35 -foot distance established by Section 3, Subd. 3.d.2.a. The gara cated approximately 21 feet behind the front of the home allowing additio space in front of the garage. Staff explained it is recommendin v ��� ith three revised conditions to assure the staff has an opportunity to verify ` . surements and setback distance. Upon inquiry, Mr. Sm the house. He ex so it is important t applicant at the site `ted s aff wants to assure the garage is not located in front of with a variance, it is recorded with the title of the property actly where the line is. If approved, staff will meet the take the measurement. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Mose Pariseau, father of the applicant, stated he staked out the garage as proposed but found they have a major problem with drainage between the back of the garage and mound system which needs to be addressed. He advised that some of the drainage is from Centerville Road during heavy rains so the farther they can get from that drainage area, the better it will be. Mr. Pariseau stated he believes the best situation is to align the back of the garage with the back of the house, but that would require a 13.5 foot variance for that location. • Chair Schaps commented on the large amount of work that has occurred on this property. Mr. Pariseau explained his son bought this property as a disaster house and to fix it up. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 3 • Chair Schaps stated the recommendation is to provide the minimum separation but also the minimum necessary deviation from the 40 -foot setback requirement as well. Mose Pariseau stated if the garage is located too far back, it would not work. Mark Pariseau, owner of the property, stated he also installs septic systems for the State of Minnesota and understands how critical it is for drainage not to run into the absorption area. He explained that with a heavy rain, the amount of water forced into the mound system is a concern and, if the garage is moved it will encroach about 30% into the swale area, even if a berm is constructed. He noted their proposed location is where cars now park and would align with the back wall of the house. In response to Chair Schaps, Mark Pariseau explained the mound system is installed per State requirements and there was really no choice for a different location. He stated he would support a 13.5 foot variance request and advised that s he mound septic system be contaminated, there is no feasible alternate site. Mark Pariseau stated that he is requesting a setback Q eel m the center of the street. Mr. Johnson reviewed the staff report and feet from the center line of the road to the feet of variance. Mr. Pariseau stated i is at 19.5 feet from the property li st recent proposal is for 62.5 he garage, which is an additional six additional three feet since the house Mr. Smyser stated the right- • ' s eet wide so a measurement from the center line, subtracting 33 feet, indica s ' back from the property line or 19.5 feet. The setback requirement is for 40 f # th ,<e iginal request was to build at 21.5 feet from the property line. The sta ° indicates support of 32.5 feet and verifying the measurement fro se. YgM ystem to assure the garage is not placed to interfere with the septic system. Mr. Johnson asked i ey want the garage to be 23 feet from the septic system. Mark Pariseau answered in the affirmative noting, however, they will have to verify that measurement. Mr. Zych stated he would support allowing the garage to be aligned with the front of the house. Mark Pariseau stated he wants the garage positioned so the back of the garage and back of the house line up. He agreed the garage would not be any closer to the roadway than the house. Chair Schaps stated as recommended by Mr. Zych, the garage would only be 20 feet from the edge of the roadway so, conceivably, a vehicle and trailer could not park in the driveway without the trailer extending into the road. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 4 • Mark Pariseau corrected that it is 20 feet to the property line but 47 feet of driveway from the garage to the edge of the roadway. Mr. Corson inquired regarding the potential for future County roadway improvements. Mr. Smyser stated the County does anticipate, at some time in the future, that some sort of improvement will occur. At that time, if the roadway is realigned, the County may need to take the house or obtain an easement from Mr. Pariseau. Mose Pariseau stated he had Roger Butler of Anoka County visit the property and talked with him about the culvert and problem with semi trucks making the turn at the front of the house. Mr. Butler had indicated they had to stay within their property and would not round off the curve to make it an easier turning movement. Mr. Butler also indicated they may consider taking land to the south, if needed, so the houses would not be impacted. Mark Pariseau stated if the County ever decides to "square" t er, it would push the intersection away from this property and provide more setb ss setback. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve a variance t. • , 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage at 6101 Centerville Road with the to $ & •editions: 1. Locate the proposed garage 30 feet fro 2. Proper building permits are obtained The motion was supported by Mr. perty line. nstruction. ion carried 6 -0. B. PUBLIC HEARIN ; ti to October 11, 2000) Oasis Market, 7509 Lake Drive, Amended C in s ffi 1 Use Permit This agenda item was d from the agenda upon adoption. Chair Schaps noteaR,, would be on the October 11, 2000 meeting agenda. C. PUBLIC HE RING, Central Suburban Inc., 416 Lilac Street, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Staff presented the application by Central Suburban, Inc. for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to build an addition on the existing building and use the site for its land development and construction business. Staff explained the CUP will cover both the building expansion and an amendment to the grandfathered outdoor storage CUP. Thus, two sets of findings must be made. Staff reviewed its analysis of the application and presented the findings required for consideration of a CUP and findings specific to outdoor storage. Staff finds that the general and specific findings apply and recommends approval of the site plan and CUP to expand the pole building and outdoor storage based on the listed findings and subject to 13 conditions plus added conditions to require the Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 5 • trash dumpster to be located inside the structure and to indicate that a sign permit would be required for any signage. • Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Bruce Kerber, representing the applicant, stated they were previously North Suburban Development and he has become more active and is Vice President with Mr. Menkveld so they actively looked for a facility. He explained that Shaw Trucking does work for them so they talked with them about this option. He stated a new facade will be created so it will be a nicer looking structure. Chair Schaps inquired about the potential for added dust. Mr. Kerber stated they have a limited staff of three and primarily do land development so the equipment is most often off site. However, the equipment will occasionally return to this site. Mr. Corson noted the City's restriction on noise generation. of operation restriction applies to construction and not However, that may have been included with other pr, as well. Mr. Kerber stated hour restrictions will not and may be some distance from this site s returns to the site. ser stated the hours siness locations. d be considered here the equipment is usually off site be 8:00 p.m. before the equipment In response to Mr. Corson, Mr . ed surrounding uses and the location of the residential neighborhood. H s will review the Moline Concrete application to determine if hours of oper i •° e placed on that application. Staff will also check other nearby industrial r•<, s. Mr. Corson state ou efer a generic reference to allow staff to research that issue. Mr. Kerber stated t my activity would be a returning dump truck and would not create more noise than a du p truck makes on the road. Chair Schaps stated the hours of operation was a huge issue with Moline Concrete but he assumes it has worked out. Mr. Smyser stated the backup indicator was changed to a strobe light rather than a sound backup. However, the strobe could not readily be seen during daylight hours so they went back to the sound backup indicator. Mr. Smyser stated staff will work with the applicant to see what can be worked out. If an agreement is not reached, staff will so report to the City Council. Chair Schaps asked if anyone else would like to make comment. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 6 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the application by Central Suburban, Inc. for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit to expand the pole building and outdoor storage based on the listed findings with the following conditions: 1. An addition to the existing pole barn building shall be allowed that is 20' x 44'. The addition shall be constructed as shown on the submitted certificate of survey, building elevations, and floor plan. 2. The exterior of the north side of the existing building and addition shall be cedar siding and cedar shingle, details as described in the August 28, 2000 letter. 3. Open outdoor storage shall be allowed, including semi- trucks, trailers, construction trucks and equipment, materials such as pipe, concrete manholes and culverts, casting, form lumber, sand, gravel, pumps, fuel and tool trailers, fiberglass pools and spas, and other items and materials used with excavation and trucking operations. 4. Open outdoor storage on the site shall not include construction rubble or debris or demolition debris. The intent is that material that is store s site is intended to be installed on other sites. 5. The fence along the north side of the storage yard o be flush with the front of the building. 6. The fence shall be repaired and ivy shall be p1a e entire west fence for screening. 7. The site landscaping shall be, at a mini s• as n on the submitted survey. 8. The applicant must obtain permits fro my for any work in the right -of -way. � F 9. The parking lot shall be paved as •n t'. submitted survey. If parking becomes an issue of concern for the pub '' saved parking lot shall be enlarged. 10. The site shall connect to Cit ater and all assessments paid. 11. The existing septic syste perly abandoned. 12. The well may be retai - • igation only, at the discretion of the landowner. If the well is not to be m d'rrigation, it must be properly abandoned. 13. Proper building pe ust be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction u_� put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. 14. No trash shall b ored outside. 15. Sign permits will •e required for any signage. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. D. Deer Meadows, Dan Robinson, 407 Main Street, Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by Deer Meadows Golf Range for a site and building plan review for a small, 12 foot by 30 foot, addition on the north side of the existing building. Staff presented its analysis of the application and recommended approval based on findings in the staff report subject to three conditions. • Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Dan Robinson, representing Deer Meadows Golf Range, stated business is getting better and he wants to be able to sell golf clubs, accessories, and regrip. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Robinson to send the Board's best wishes to his father who served the City for years on the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the request of Deer Meadows Golf Range for site and building plan review for a small addition to the existing building at the Deer Meadows Golf Range based on the findings in staff's report, with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the site plan and conditional use permit is not an implied approval of signage. Any signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 2. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed. 3. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. The motion was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion c E. City of Lino Lakes, Otter Lake Road, Mi or ° �, Sion Staff explained the City has purchased land Clearwater Creek light industrial area. T via a minor subdivision. Staff advised not just an easement. Since this is claim to a buildable lot on either s Mr. Johnson noted a discre remembers it was to be correct road name and roadway is being ..te accommodate ne d wetland mitigation in the ust be divided from the larger parcel power line strip is a parcel in itself, for ponding, there is no danger of a SP land. Staff recommends approval. the maps regarding the road name. He stated that he crest. Mr. Smyser agreed there is confusion about the able to answer that question. However, one section of the art of this process in cooperation with the City of Hugo to ent in Hugo. Mr. Johnson made a < OTION to approve the request of the City of Lino Lakes for a minor subdivision in the Clearwater Creek light industrial area to facilitate ponding and wetland mitigation, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 7:29 p.m. Staff explained the public hearing had been continued from the last meeting to allow staff to analyze a sample development project using the draft tree ordinance and to address the requirements for individual home builders. Staff asked the Board to consider and discuss the issues raised in its staff report and provide direction for revising the draft ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated he did not find this scenario to be what staff would consider a "typical" development but maybe one -fifth of the developments submitted may have heavier than • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 8 normal costs due to tree replacement. He suggested writing language into the ordinance to create exceptions to the rule, one being if the developer demonstrates there is not enough land in the development to replace the roads, the City could allow less than what would be required, or a cap per lot or per acre could be created. With regard to an acceptable cost, Mr. Smyser stated there are a number of options related to cost such as stating boulevard trees could be counted toward replacement trees. However, that may raise an issue with a developer required to place boulevard trees without involving the replacement requirement. Another possibility would be to place a cap on the replacement cost by the acre or lot, or to allow the developer to demonstrate there is no room on the property without the loss of the number of lots. Or, the replacement percentages could be adjusted downward. Mr. Smyser noted the added statement to Section IV, A, to indicate: "The City's intent for the tree preservation plans for individual single family lot •rovide guidance to the prospective resident on the best ways to protect the tree = gee lot ner wants to protect. The City will not mandate which trees to cut o on this and how to preserve the selected trees. The permit simply because of the selection of which tre remove." 1 make suggestions ithhold a building uilder wants to save or Mr. Smyser asked if the Board would lik a + co ` er these modifications. Mr. Corson stated his general conc specimen trees, however, cotto he would support removal o include the size, species, property but is to not i of Siberian Elm, certai ed previously, is the goal to preserve and box elder trees are included. He stated Mr. Smyser stated the plan requirements are to on of all significant trees to be removed from the es indicated in a specific section. Thus, replacement e, cottonwood, boxelder is not required. Mr. Johnson note •?� removed for the building pads or streets could not be replaced in those log, ons and asked when those trees would be replaced. Mr. Smyser stated the timing for `=placement is not indicated specifically in the ordinance but could be addressed in the development agreement with the requirement to complete planting before the escrow funds are released. Mr. Johnson noted the wishes and desires of the lot buyer with regard to tree placement should be considered in this process. He stated he believes this type of ordinance will result in a variety of situations and variables so it may not be possible to write a single ordinance to address all possible scenarios. Mr. Smyser stated staff gave thought to indicating where the trees should be located or when the trees should be planted. However, if left open, it provides more flexibility and allows the developer to make that determination, to negotiate with individual lot buyers, or negotiate with staff. Mr. Johnson stated he believes developers in Lino Lakes want to place trees on the individual lots but if a problem were to occur, the ordinance language could be tightened. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 9 • Mr. Smyser stated he will review the ordinance to assure there is no language that would interfere with the developer's ability to negotiate that issue with individual lot buyers. • Mr. Johnson stated the developer could also grant a "tree credit" to the individual lot . buyer so the buyer can determine what they want and where the trees should be located. Ms. Lane asked if the developer would be obligated to place the trees on another lot if a home buyer does not want trees, or if those trees could be waived. Mr. Smyser stated the City is not mandating where the trees must be located, except they must be somewhere else in the development. Ms. Lane stated her concern with a bureaucratic approach to government regulation of tree replacement and location. She agreed that developers want to save nice trees since it will result in more money for their lots. She stated she remains concerned with this ordinance and does not support its adoption as it will become bersome and require additional staff time for enforcement. Mr. Smyser stated there already is an ordinance but a ; ambiguous so staff is faced with trying to make a determination on each eF�.i what will happen. To provide more clear and understandable guideli � i • ive`� e developer more "up front" information so the tree preservation plan c according to the stated guidelines. He explained the current ordi - s a lot of staff time to determine and negotiate and he believes the propose • •'ill provide more clear direction and, thus, reduce the amount of staff ti Rk y� -r stated staff has received complaints from developers that they are nob a „ro g o front what will be required. Chair Schaps stated the in n e it more efficient is well intended however he supports the comments that it is too personal to tell lot buyers they must have trees if they don't hem as well as the placement and species. He stated his support to use th s an a "calculator" so developers can be told what they will be assessed for tree r t, but he believes the City needs to be absolutely submissive to the needs and de =s of the individual lot owner. Should there be a surplus of trees and the owners do no want trees, the City should have the option to request cash for placement in the park fund, or find another location in Lino Lakes that needs trees. Mr. Smyser stated he agrees 100% with Chair Schaps and Ms. Lane, noting there is nothing in the ordinance to require the lot owner to accept a tree. If there is a surplus of trees, language could be included to address that situation. With regard to the suggestion of cash in lieu of trees, the City Attorney has indicated that cannot be done because it requires the developer to pay for an improvement off site which is seen as being an impact fee. John Johnson thanked staff for their diligence in trying to find a way to make this work. He stated that while progress is being made, he believes there is still a ways to go. He stated Gary Uhde, his client, remains concerned and believes the ordinance needs to be worded so it works. John Johnson presented a picture of the property his client would like to develop which depicted the trees to be removed to accommodate the roadway and • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 10 building pads. With a standard grading plan, many of the trees would be removed and the trees in the rear lots would be impacted due to the change in elevation. He suggested flexibility in presenting grading plans to allow for custom grading until after the lot buyer and home style is identified. He stated this example, about 275 trees would need to be replaced or a range of 12 to 14 per lot. John Johnson commented on Gary Uhde's estimate of $10,000 per lot to meet the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. John Johnson stated he supports staff's recommended revisions and supports placing a cap on the number of trees and ratio of trees removed for right -of -way versus for the building pad. He suggested the use of the overlay district be made available to provide for more flexibility. John Johnson stated street width flexibility would also preserve more trees. He reviewed the City of Plymouth requirement to place funds in a tree fund if the caliper inch requirement cannot be replaced. John Johnson agreed there are buyers who do not want trees more sense to wait to plant the trees until after the house is two cases where the lot owner removed trees from their He agreed the lot buyer needs to be part of the "equ t hold a workshop with developers to discuss these i is agreed with and what is not agreed with H •k + at for a tree preservation ordinance but wants well John Johnson offered to help and a e he can elieved it makes d. He advised of closing the sale. hnson suggested staff urn with a report on what r. Uhde understands the need drafted in a way that it will work Mr. Corson stated his support for tuber of trees per lot at five or six. He stated when you consider the ut ti. €" v.a §F .ys, building pads, and boulevards, it would take about 50% of the trees of rather than 25% so he would support a cap. Mr. Rafferty asked if t based on the size of lot be required to re and result in abou resented in staff's analysis are somewhat correct Johnson is involved with. John Johnson stated they would 2,000 caliper inches so their costs would be much higher per lot. Mr. Rafferty stated st ff is seeking recommendations on how to continue with their efforts. He stated he would like Marty Asleson to provide input on this issue as he has a background with tree preservation. Mr. Rafferty stated he also supports continuing discussions between developers and staff. Chair Schaps suggested staff schedule a workshop with developers and interested Board members. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Asleson was involved in the drafting of this ordinance and has presented it to the Environmental Board. He stated he will schedule the requested workshop but noted it may take some time to accomplish that discussion. Mr. Smyser pointed out that a delay will mean it is not placed into effect until the next construction season. Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Johnson noted there is only so much room for trees on a lot and in some developments there are no trees in the first place. He asked if the concern is the proper tree density rather than the number of trees removed. Mr. Smyser stated that depends on your perspective and concern about loss of trees in Lino Lakes. He noted the issue is to try to prevent tree loss in the first place. One of the incentives that is contributed to by a tree replacement requirement is sensitive development of the site. Chair Schaps asked if anyone present would like to provide additional input. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to November 8, 2000 to allow time for staff to schedule and hold a workshop with developers, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0 Chair Schaps thanked John Johnson for his taking time to attend the meeting tonight, offer input, and volunteer to work with staff. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Schedule of Meetings, Report Packets Mr. Smyser presented the application dead staff lengthened the total review time bet recommendation meeting and the Cit outstanding issues. Overall, the re advisory boards and governmen ie ng schedule and advised that lanning & Zoning Board ting to assure adequate time to resolve allows more time for review by Mr. Rafferty stated his ap the ability of the Boar packets prior to the me Board members t days of review tim for learning about the timing but stated his concern is have enough time to adequately review the meeting He suggested finding a way to get the packets delivered to y before the meeting which would provide two additional Chair Schaps stated has had the pleasure of serving on the Planning Commission for ten years and while he agrees there are times the meeting packets are large and more time is needed for review, part of the obligation when seeking the appointment or reappointment is to understand how the City has grown and expanded and that staff cannot always keep up with the amount of work. He suggested that to a large extent, if you agree to the appointment, you need to understand there may not always be enough appropriate time to read the packets without sacrificing something else. Chair Schaps stated he has always had enough time, but had the feeling that it would be nice to have a little more times. However, getting the packets out takes a lot of staff time. Chair Schaps stated that while it would be a good goal to get the meeting packets out by the Wednesday before the meeting, it may not be realistic for each meeting. Mr. Rafferty stated the members are appointed by the Council, go through the interview process, and stated they would do the best job they could to assist in the Planning Department to support the City moving forward. He stated it does not say anything about • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 12 doing a job by Wednesday when there is not enough information provided or being able to get out to the site and physically view the site during daylight hours. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciates the long days worked by City Staff but stated he does not believe the Board receives enough information or enough time for review. He noted the meeting packet for tonight's meeting and suggested it contains nothing that would prevent it from being delivered by the Wednesday before the meeting. Mr. Rafferty stated he wants to be prepared so he can provide support and direction to the Planning Department. Chair Schaps stated the issue is if there are enough staff hours to create the information in the meeting packet, noting there are more work tasks than to prepare this meeting packet. He stated he has no reason to doubt that staff is getting the information to the Board as quickly as possible. Ms. Lane stated when serving on the Park Board, they held Monday meetings and the meeting packets were delivered the previous Thursday. Shea'ed how she was able to accommodate that tight schedule and stated she has no .`§ h the current Planning & Zoning Board schedule and meeting packet Chair Schaps excused himself from the meeting at remainder of the meeting. Mr. Johnson stated having the meeting p review of the information as he has b over the weekend. s. Lane chaired the dditional days would not help his ew the information and visit the sites Mr. Rafferty stated he is as " t. to provide information that will allow them as Board members to utilize e ,'' . d be helpful to City staff. He stated he is not asking for anything unreasona r s'.�' them to try. Vice Chair Lane called and given t meeting packets are the meeting packets are completed earlier, members be to stop by City Hall to pick them up. Mr. Smyser stated if the mpleted early, the Police Department will deliver them early. Mr. Johnson noted there have been several large detailed projects that require more review but he believes that is the exception. In that case, he would support the information being provided as soon as possible so there is adequate time for review. Vice Chair Lane agreed setting a goal for an earlier meeting packet delivery is a good suggestion. Mr. Rafferty encouraged staff to continue with the hard work they are doing and set a goal for an earlier meeting packet delivery, even if it is only one day. John Johnson stated in Brooklyn Park, staff sent copies of the public hearing notices to the public 10 -14 days in advance of the meeting. They also sent those same notices to the Board members to alert them of what was coming up. It also allowed them several additional days to visit the site. • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 13, 2000 Page 13 Mr. Rafferty stated his support for that suggestion. Mr. Smyser stated the notices are very straight forward and could be mailed to Board members. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.