Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/1998 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : January 14, 1998 : 6:34 P.M. 8:45 P.M. Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Robinson and Schaps None : Planning Coordinator Wyland, Economic Development Director Wessel, Planning Consultant Brixius I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., January 14, 1998. He pointed out that Ms. Dahl was not present at this meeting due to her election to City Council. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1997 Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 10, 1997 meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried, 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:35 p.m. There were no comments. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of Public Hearing, Telecommunication Ordinance Chair Schaps opened the continuation of this public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Mr. Brixius explained that development of this ordinance has been ongoing for approximately five months. He indicated that his hope was to present enough information at this time to close the public hearing. Prior to reviewing the current draft of the ordinance, Mr. Brixius directed the Board's attention to the November 19, 1997 opinion of the City Attorney's office. This opinion was based upon a previous draft of the ordinance, and expresses clearly that the Telecommunications Act gives Lino Lakes the authority, through zoning, to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities. However, the opinion went on to caution that IN GENERAL. No state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications services. Mr. Brixius stated that the draft ordinance upon which this opinion was based incorporated placement of telecommunication antennas and towers in various zoning designations, including commercial, industrial and semi - public. The opinion expresses agreement with the appropriateness of placing them within these zones, providing the City is not limiting tower or service ability to the community and that the ordinance cannot be interpreted to be so restrictive as to prevent adequate provision of this utility. The first draft ordinance was more lenient. Concerns addressed were placement of towers and/or antennas with respect to aesthetic and environmental impact on the community. The December 4 draft, which was forwarded to the Planning Commission in December, includes a number of changes. Mr. Brixius mentioned that a meeting had taken place with MnDOT and U.S. West at which two issues were discussed: (1) Placement of a personal wireless service antenna for use by U.S. West, and (2) location of an emergency public safety tower for MnDOT which would serve State patrol, Anoka County including the local correctional facility, and some local police band radio communications. In review of the 12/4/97 draft ordinance, Mr. Brixius directed the Board's attention first to Section 1, which consists of pertinent definitions. Section 1.1. through 1.6. refer to the various types of antennas and their distinctly separate treatment. Mr. Brixius reviewed certain additional definitions of particular note, such as Secondary Use. He pointed out • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 3 • that antennas of this nature are owned by the service provider, not by the property owner; • • and that the City's desire is that such antennas be located on existing support structures. Mr. Gelbmann asked if Section 1.6. as written is perhaps too specific, suggesting that other types of communication, such as citizen band, might fall under this category. Mr. Brixius indicated that he would have no objection to adding citizen band to this definition. Mr. Brixius continued, with specific attention to the definitions of Support Structure, being any structure other than a tower to which an antenna can be attached; Tower, which would be a separate structure intended primarily for the purpose of mounting antennas; and Tower, Temporary Mobile, which would also be intended primarily for mounting of antennas, but on a mobile structure. Next Mr. Brixius referred to Section 2., which is intended to address general provisions of the City's zoning code. Of particular significance, the last sentence of Section 2. Subd. 15., Antennas, A., Purpose and Intent states: The provisions of the section are intended to maximize the use of existing towers, structures, and buildings to accommodate new wireless telecommunication antennas in order to minimize the number of towers needed to serve the community. Mr. Brixius then summarized the 14 General Standards of Section 2. Subd. 15.B., which apply to all antennas, including restriction as to location of antennas on nonconforming structures, setback requirements for tower location, removal of obsolete or unused antennas within 12 months, compliance with Uniform Building and Electrical Code requirements, compliance with manufacturer's specifications, authorization of property owners, prohibition of advertising and artificial illumination, accommodation of additional users, appearance of towers, safety specifications, impact upon ongoing public services, and amateur radio towers including federally licensed amateur radio stations. With respect to No. 7 of these standards which refers to advertising restrictions, Mr. Johnson asked if that would include U.S. West placing its name on an antenna intended for its use. Mr. Brixius explained that an identification marker would probably be acceptable. The purpose of this provision is to prevent antennas and antenna structures from becoming advertising billboards. Mr. Brixius then summarized Section 2., Subd. 15., C., which provides for certification, inspection and maintenance of towers, antenna support structures and related equipment or structures. No. 3 under this section states, in part, "The City shall have authority to enter onto the property upon which a tower is located, between the inspections and Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 4 certifications required above... ", and Mr. Brixius recommended that the phrase "between the inspections and certifications required above" be eliminated. No. 3 would then read: 3. The City shall have authority to enter onto the property upon which a tower is located to inspect the tower for the purpose of determining whether it complies with the Uniform Building Code and all other construction standards provided by the City's Code, federal and state law. The City reserves the right to conduct such inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice to the owner. All expenses related to such inspecting by the City shall be borne by the owner. Mr. Brixius summarized Section 2., Subd. 15., D., E., and F., which cover the City's requirements with respect to monopole tower design, approval of new towers only if antennas cannot be located on existing towers within a one -mile radius, and location of accessory antennas outside of required yards (except a rear yard) or within utility easements, with a minimum five -foot setback and a maximum fifteen -foot addition in height above the existing structure's height restriction, without approval of a conditional use permit. With respect to Section 2., Subd. 15.G., which refers to provisions for Personal Wireless Service Antennas, Mr. Brixius requested the addition of language to include permitted secondary use, as follows: G.1.a. Antennas Located Upon An Existing Structure. Personal wireless service antennas as a permitted secondary use may be located upon existing towers or structures and shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: Mr. Gelbmann asked if this provides that short wave or citizen band operators can lease space on their towers to commercial providers. Mr. Brixius explained that this would be possible, citing such additional applications as church steeples, utility poles, and light poles within community parks. Within this same section, Mr. Brixius requested the addition of the following language: G.1.b. New Towers: The erection of new personal wireless service towers within Rural, Residential and Business Zoning Districts of the City is prohibited. • • • i • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Robinson asked why towers within rural zoning districts would be prohibited. Mr. Brixius explained that, again, this requirement is designed to limit a large number of towers. Even though certain areas of the City are currently zoned Rural, there is always the possibility that they may not be indefinitely. Mr. Robinson referred specifically to an area in the northeast portion of Lino Lakes, asking if the community's total coverage would be sufficient with the exclusion of that particular area. Mr. Brixius stated that U.S. West had been consulted with respect to anticipated area coverage. Over all, caution is recommended, with an eye toward avoiding challenge on the basis of being overly restrictive. In Section 2., Subd. 15., G.2., which states the City's requirements with respect to its industrial district, Mr. Brixius requested the addition of the following language: and G.2.a. Antennas Located Upon An Existing Structure or Existing Tower. Personal wireless service telephone antennas as a permitted secondary use may be located upon an existing structure or co- located on an existing tower and shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: G.2.b. New Towers. New towers as a permitted secondary accessory use shall require an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: Mr. Brixius also asked that G.2.b.1) be amended to read as follows: The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to provide adequate portable personal wireless service telephone coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by location the antennas on existing towers or support structures. Section 2., Subd. 15.G.2.b.2) sets the City's requirements for height and setback. Section 2., Subd. 15.G.2.b.2)a) provides for a two - antenna capacity tower not to exceed 100 feet, and a three - antenna capacity tower not to exceed 120 feet. Section 2., Subd. 15.G.2.b.2)b) includes a setback of not less than the height of the antenna from the nearest property line. Mr. Brixius stated that the industry representatives have requested an increase to the height requirement. Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 6 The remainder of Section 2., Subd. 15.G.2.b. deals with housing of support equipment and security fencing. Mr. Brixius recommended the following change to Section 2., Subd. 15.G.2.c.: Temporary Mobile Towers. Personal wireless service antennas located upon a temporary mobile tower as a permitted secondary use may be used on an interim basis until a permanent site is constructed and shall require the approval of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: Section 2., Subd. 15.G.3. should be entitled Public /Semi - Public District Standards, and Section 2., Subd. 15.G.3.a. should be amended to read as follows: Antennas Located Upon An Existing Tower or Structure. Personal wireless service antennas as permitted secondary use may be located upon public structures or existing towers and shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: Section 2., Subd. 15.G.3.b., referring to new towers, should be similarly amended, to read as follows: New towers as permitted secondary uses shall require approval of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards. Mr. Brixius also recommended that Section 2., Subd. 15.G.3.b.1) be amended to state: The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to provide adequate wireless coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas on existing towers or support structures. Mr. Brixius reviewed Section 2., Subd. 15.H., which provides guidance with respect to commercial and public radio and television transmitting antennas and public utility microwave antennas. The standards include consistency with the requirements of Section 2, Subd. 2; location upon a continuous parcel being equal in size to the height of the structure, and safety in the form of a fence not greater than eight feet in height with a maximum opacity of fifty percent. • • • r • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 7 With respect to the industry's request to change the maximum height requirement, Mr. Brixius referred the Board to January 9, 1998 correspondence from John Gibbs, suggesting the following addition: Section G.1.c. Height Limitations. For the purpose of locating personal wireless service antennas on existing towers or structures, height limitations otherwise imposed by other provisions of this code or applicable land use regulation or permits may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: 1) Church spires 2) Belfries 3) Cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space 4) Monuments 5) Water towers 6) Fire and hose towers 7) Observation towers 8) Flag poles 9) Chimneys 10) Smokestacks 11) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the building 12) Cooling 13) Elevator penthouses 14) Utility poles Mr. Brixius explained that this proposed language accomplishes the purpose, but runs contrary to the desired effect of the ordinance with respect to personal wireless service antennas. The existing Code language provides that non - occupancy structures should not exceed the following: Residential and industrial - 200 feet. Residential, Commercial and semi - public - 45 feet. Anything greater than 45 feet requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Brixius explained proposed language that excepts personal wireless antennas required by Section 15 of the Code, with the balance remaining the same. Mr. Johnson asked how the proposed 50% allowable increase would be accomplished. Mr. Brixius explained that in cases such as utility poles, a new structure would replace the existing one which would include the additional height. However, in the case of Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 8 existing structures, adding an antenna could not extend above the existing structure more than the height allowance for that zoning district. Mr. Johnson then asked about criteria for use in considering conditional use permit applications. Mr. Brixius stated that in his opinion demonstration of need would have to be established, and that details of that criteria could be fleshed out if desired. Subsequent sections provide less restrictive requirements for R and R -X areas, which would be permitted personal wireless service antennas as permitted secondary uses, accessory antennas, commercial and public radio /TV and public utility microwave antennas. With respect to industrial and public /semi - public areas, personal wireless antennas will be allowed on support structures as permitted secondary use, and accessory antennas will be allowed as permitted accessory use. The reference to commercial radio antennas should be eliminated, as they will not be allowed as conditional use within commercial districts. Reference to commercial radio antennas should be eliminated, as commercial broadcasting antennas will not be allowed as permitted use within commercial districts. However, additional information is required prior to final decision with regard to what will be permitted within commercial districts. Mr. Wessel indicated that he would bring the issue of antenna towers within industrial districts before EDAB on February 5. Questions which will be considered are whether or not they would be somehow intrusive and possibly inhibit development, and whether or not they would be appropriate in zones adjacent to residential areas. He added that he would bring EDAB's recommendation back to the next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Chair Schaps asked where Lino Lakes is in relation to other cities in the area. Mr. Brixius stated that the concerns of Lino Lakes are not unique. Chair Schaps asked if there are others who have already dealt with the issues and, having gone through the learning experience, could perhaps be used as models. Mr. Brixius mentioned Lakeville, Plymouth and New Hope, all of which have been considered for location of telecommunications facilities, but none of which have ordinances in place. He added that it is not uncommon for providers to look to industrial areas for location of towers and antennas, and that target areas are interstate corridors first with expansion into other areas. Mr. Herr asked if a technical study is planned. He pointed out that the City of Bloomington has put together significant information which it has already shared with approximately 80 communities. However, since Lino Lakes has no opportunity for locating antennas on buildings, it cannot compare to cities such as Bloomington except to get an idea of the additional challenges for this community in providing adequate service coverage. Mr. Brixius mentioned a collaboration by the northwestern suburban • • • a • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 9 communities who wanted to establish a model so that they could offer similar standards to prospective service providers. The language in the proposed ordinance embodies that of these other communities. Mr. Herr asked if the 100- to 120 -foot height requirement currently being proposed is adequate to provide service for a 2 -mile radius area. Mr. Brixius indicated that in other rural areas similar to Lino Lakes 160 -foot antennas provides much more extensive coverage than the 2 -mile radius. Chair Schaps asked how many antennas /towers Lino Lakes might expect. Mr. Brixius explained that a figure has not been determined, and that the total number of antennas will depend greatly upon how many providers come into the area. Mr. Herr pointed out that Bloomington currently accommodates six providers with three additional applications pending. He added that he was informed it is unlikely that more than three providers can be located on a given structure. Mr. Dunn first requested clarification as to the definition of "tower ". He then asked if there are any anticipated situations in any districts where a tower can be installed without a conditional use permit. Mr. Brixius explained that in districts where towers are allowed one can be installed by administrative use permit. Mr. Dunn requested the provisions whereby an administrative use permit can be approved. Mr. Brixius indicated that this information could be provided. He added that administrative use permits would be limited to public /semi - public and industrial areas, as such antennas can only be attached to existing structures. Mr. Dunn then asked if the proposed ordinance is more restrictive with regard to personal wireless service antennas than for commercial service. Mr. Brixius indicated that it is only more restrictive with regard to location. He then pointed out that the ordinance requires a conditional use permit for commercial service, which is more restrictive than for personal wireless service. Mr. Dunn asked if there is any ratio of area coverage to height of structure. Mr. Brixius indicated that coverage depends upon a number of factors, such as topography and population density. Peter Beck of AT &T Wireless Service addressed the Board, explaining that he has considerable experience with wireless service to the Twin Cities area. He explained that with regard to cellular service each cell is assigned an area of coverage. Height of each set of antennas is not necessarily determined solely on the size of each cell. With regard to Mr. Dunn's question, Mr. Beck added that in fairly flat areas fewer towers may be sufficient. However, he expressed concern about the proposed ordinance prohibiting service to most of the Lino Lakes area, as it is a prime candidate for co- location but without sufficient height service providers will not be able to co- locate. Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Herr asked for a maximum number of providers per tower. Mr. Beck indicated possibly four, but typically three. He added that a 120 -foot antenna could not accommodate as many as three providers. Mr. Beck again cautioned the Board about making the ordinance too restrictive. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not AT &T currently uses any 120 -foot antennas. Mr. Beck replied yes, within central cities. In fact, he explained that 75- to 80 -foot antennas are relatively common, but are usually specifically for additional coverage to small, specific areas. Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Beck for his thoughts on a city such as Lino Lakes with few appropriate existing structures, suggesting that new towers might prevail. Mr. Beck responded that one of his primary concerns about the proposed ordinance is that "poles" are prohibited almost everywhere. He explained that wireless service is a capital - intensive business, and that service companies do not build towers unless they have to; existing structures are always preferable. Mr. Beck also pointed out that the phrase "intended primarily" explains the difference between a tower and a support structure. He then referred to specific areas of concern within the proposed ordinance; specifically, Subd. 15.B.1., B.9., and B.12. Subd. 15.B.1. refers to erection of antennas or towers on any nonconforming structure. Mr. Beck stated that, given the small number of existing structures in Lino Lakes, restricting use to "conforming" structures would eliminate a considerable number of possibilities. B.9 refers to construction of new towers to accommodate more than one antenna and to allow for rearranging and situating antennas at varying heights. Mr. Beck stated that in order to meet this standard poles would have to be higher than 75 feet. Mr. Beck's concern with B.12. was that the FAA should be responsible for regulating the placement of towers near airports. Chair Schaps raised the question of consideration for seaplane bases. Mr. Beck was not personally familiar with seaplane bases, but reiterated his suggestion that the FAA should regulate. Mr. Beck continued, expressing concern regarding Subd. 15.E.1., G.1.a.1), and G.1.b. With respect to 15.E.1., he again pointed out that co- location would be extremely difficult if not impossible with nonconforming structures being prohibited from use. Mr. Beck expressed concern that G.1.a.1) would require inappropriate placement of equipment housing with respect to the principal structure, and Mr. Brixius agrees that he would consider changing that requirement to allow for placement of equipment housing in compliance with permitted accessory use building setback requirements. Finally, Mr. Beck objected to G.1.b., which prohibits erection of new towers within rural, residential and business districts. Mr. Brixius agreed to amend that section to state "The erection of new personal wireless service towers within rural, residential and business zoning districts of the City is prohibited." • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 11 As he previously explained, Mr. Beck again expressed concern over height and setback requirements expressed in 2.b.2)a) and b). Mr. Brixius acknowledged the apparent need for additional height, and agreed that the setback requirement should refer to accessory structures. Mr. Robinson suggested that additional tower height would result in an unacceptable degree of aesthetic intrusion, and that the setback provided by the proposed ordinance would alleviate that problem. Mr. Beck suggested that compliance with that standard would only make the towers more visible. Mr. Beck suggested that 2.b.3) is unnecessary, as operational equipment is generally housed within existing structures or a cabinet provided by the service company. He added that this provision prohibits flexibility with respect to design in the event new construction is required. Mr. Beck questioned the title of Subd. 15.G.3., and Mr. Brixius indicated that it should be corrected to read "Public /Semi - Public District Standards ". He added that Subd.15.G.3.a. should be amended to read as follows: Antennas Located Upon An Existing Tower or Structure. Personal wireless service antennas as permitted secondary use may be located upon support structures or existing towers and shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: Mr. Beck also disagreed with the requirement of Subd.15.G.3.b.2)b) regarding setback from the nearest property line being not less than the height of the antenna. Mr. Brixius clarified that this provision pertains to adjacent residential property. Dave Hagen of Sprint PCS addressed the Board, stating that he shares many of the same concerns expressed by Mr. Beck. He specified that districts where towers would be allowed appear to be very scarce, height limit should be increased to at least 170 feet, and that in the case of his company the cabinet in which operational equipment is housed is preferable to new building construction. Mr. Wessel agreed that Lino Lakes has unique qualities, and invited both Mr. Beck and Mr. Hagen to attend the EDAB meeting at 7:00 a.m. in City Hall on Thursday, February 5, 1998 in order to participate in further discussion of the issues. Mr. Dunn asked about the possibility of pictures and /or overlays to better demonstrate proposed tower /antenna and equipment storage location. Mr. Hagen indicated that this service has been provided in the past. Mr. Brixius explained that he is in agreement with Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Hagen, in that operating equipment will only be housed within structures when those structures exist. Otherwise, the cabinet is sufficient. Mr. Dunn asked about motivation behind building new towers. Mr. Beck explained that (1) new providers would be attracted to the area, (2) coverage would be improved, and (3) capacity issues could be addressed. Mr. Dunn asked about a switch from analog to digital service. Mr. Beck stated that the trend is increasingly toward digital service. Mr. Herr left the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Gelbmann asked how quickly service "cell" sizes would shrink. Mr. Beck stated that from 1987 to present the number within the Twin Cities has increased from 9 to 100. He added that industry-wide this number will continue to increase. Mr. Gelbmann clarified that the lower height limit is the tree line, and suggested that high towers would eventually become obsolete. Mr. Beck agreed. Mr. Gelbmann then asked if it isn't, therefore, more efficient to restrict antenna height. Mr. Beck explained that it would be at least one or two years before antennas of less than 150 feet would be needed, adding that NEXTEL maintains a 195 -foot design standard for its towers. Mr. Beck again stated that the most important issue for Lino Lakes with respect to wireless service is co- location. Mr. Brixius pointed out that during the course of discussion a number of issues had been raised which may require additional consideration. They are: 1. Performance standards for administrative permits. 2. Adjustment to the tower height requirement with attention to co- location. 3. Prohibited districts (subject to input from EDAB). 4. Definition of "tower" (which was resolved in discussion). 5. Setback for equipment buildings being in relation to "accessory" rather than "principal" buildings. 6. Specific language with regard to storage of equipment. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:23 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Dunn. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Brixius suggested that he would make the agreed upon amendments to the ordinance, requesting additional guidance from the Board with respect to proposed tower height, and prepare an amended draft ordinance for presentation at the next regular Board meeting. The Board agreed that the ordinance should be more flexible with regard to tower height. Mr. Brixius recommended that, instead of a standard of 120 feet, 160 -foot towers be • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 13 • permitted for co- location of three service providers, and that the height be reduced to 140 feet for two. The Board agreed. • • Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to continue consideration of the Telecommunication Ordinance to the February, 1998 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Dunn. Motion carried 6 -0. B. MUSA Land Exchange, The Village Mr. Wessel explained that the City Council recently approved the schematic design package for the civic complex project. The schedule for construction includes May groundbreaking, which must be maintained in order to comply with the City's agreement with the Centennial School District to provide a new Early Childhood Learning Center by November, 1998. The MUSA land trade which must be approved would be for 7.35 acres of MUSA to be exchanged within The Village to allow for the timely construction of the project. Approval by the Planning & Zoning Board would be the first step, then the exchange would have to be approved by the City Council, and ultimately by the Metropolitan Council. In the event that the exchange is approved at this time, Council will hold a public hearing at its January 26 meeting. Through the use of visual aids, Mr. Wessel reviewed the progress of the public facilities project to date. He explained that, in order to implement the project, a series of issues must be addressed, MUSA being one of those issues. The City has purchased the land surrounding the 25 acres of park land proposed for exchange. He pointed out that the request is not for additional MUSA, but rather to borrow, or transfer, MUSA to the building site. Then, when the Comprehensive Plan is complete, a request will be made to replenish MUSA for the remainder. Mr. Gelbmann requested clarification regarding that portion of the area proposed for "borrowing" being a parking area, asking if the parking lot does not have to be within MUSA. Mr. Wessel stated that ultimately it does, but time would allow for this temporary transfer. Mr. Dunn asked if the proposed shift of MUSA would encumber the shape of the title from Anoka County. Mr. Wessel stated that, to the contrary, Anoka County recommended the exchange process. Mr. Robinson asked about the source of land to trade. Mr. Wessel explained that in 1994 the Anoka County negotiated the 25 -acre trade with Lino Lakes for the purpose of protecting certain areas from encroachment by property developments. Mr. Robinson asked about the Vaughn property, and Mr. Wessel explained that Council elected to proceed with an eminent domain proceeding to acquire that land. Mr. Robinson expressed his displeasure with that process; but Mr. Wessel stated that Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 1998 Page 14 considerable effort was made to negotiate an agreement with Mr. Vaughn and eminent domain was a last resort. Mr. Wessel also explained that there is no interest on the part of the City in acquiring the property owned by the Taggs. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the exchange of 7.35 acres of MUSA to facilitate construction of the public facilities portion of The Village, and was supported by Mr. Dunn. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. NOTE: Diana Turner Proposal - Temporarily on Hold VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. • • •