Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/12/1993 Ak APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1993 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: WILKUS (Chairman) ,WEEKS,DYE, ANDERSON,LYNCH,VASALY,ARGUE STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING DEPT. SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: WEEKS, ARGUE, LYNCH I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Wilkus called the meeting to order at 7: 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda and it was approved as submitted. III. MINUTES OF JULY S. 1993 MEETING MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the July 8, 1993 minutes as submitted. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. VARIANCES Wilkus explained the order of the variance proceedings to those in attendance. A. Request #93-15 by FreeburgfPerkins/Feltl of 7010 Willow Creek Road for the resubdivision of three acres into three lots which include the following: Shoreland Variances • 1. Lot 1 - 1.04 acre shoreland lot size versus 5 acre requirement. 1 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 2. Lot 1 - 220 feet of lot width at building line versus 300, requirement. 3. Lot 1 - 80 foot setback from Ordinary High water Level versus 100• requirement. 4. Lot 2 - 1.24 acre shoreland lot size versus 5 acre requirement. S. Lot 2 - 170 feet of lot width at building line versus 300, requirement. 6. Lot 2 - 40 foot setback from Ordinary High water Level versus 100, requirement. 7. Lot 2 - 0 foot setback for existing screen porch at Ordinary High water Level. 8. Lot 3 - .72 acre shoreland lot size versus 5 acre requirement. 9. Lot 3 - 120 feet Of lot width at building line versus 300, requirement. 10. Lot 3 - 145 foot lot width at Ordinary High water Level versus 150, requirement. Other Variances 11. Lot 1 - No frontage on a public street. 12. Lot 2 - No frontage on a public street. 13. Lot 3 - 70 feet of lot width on a public street. (90, required) Johnson said that the proponent had requested a two month continuance. The Planning Commission has agreed and Council has also agreed to continue it to October 5. It could be continued to the October 14 meting of the Board of Appeals. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue the variance for two months as requested by the proponent. B. Request #93-31 by Eden Trace Corporation/Mark Undestad for 14500 Martin Drive to permit proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Edenvale Industrial Park loth Addition with a lot frontage of 1001 . City Code requires 200, in the I-2 zoning District. . Mark Undestad came forward to present the request. He displayed his plans and said that the site has a history of soil problems and wetlands. They would like to make two 2 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 parcels of the property. In order to maintain footage, they need to "cut" though the parcel. Johnson noted the Staff Report from the Community Development Department that was included in the packets. The lot is part of the Edenvale PUD. At that time, Edenvale had a series of smaller lots, which was not uncharacteristic. The Planning Commission has reviewed the appeal. Council acted favorably in July. Only the frontage issue requires a variance. Dye asked if this was consolidated 2-3 years ago. He asked if the two buildings would be built immediately and if they would be single level. Undestad answered yes to all questions from Dye. Anderson asked why a variance was needed for the wetlands. Undestad explained that they had tried to hold the buildings into an area that is workable. A ponding area will be created on the inside of the site and in one other area on the parcel. • Anderson asked if the buildings would be close together with parking area around them. Undestad answered that Anderson was correct. Wilkus asked why the parcel was being split into two parts. Undestad answered that there was enough building area to split it into two parts and it is a nice looking site - a park setting. Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 93-31 to allow for 100' frontage. The hardship is the wetland areas on the property. Dye suggested an amendment subjecting the approval to the staff recommendations on page 4. Vasaly seconded the motion as amended. Motion passed unanimously. • C. R_Request #93-32 by Hennepin County Parks for Bryant 3 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 Lake Regional Park, (1) to permit construction of a picnic pavilion 138, from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requires 2001 setback; (2) to permit visitor center 180, from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requires 2001 ; (3) to permit boat rental&hanging shelter 65, from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requires 2001 . Alex Meyer, a landscape architect, came forward to present the variance request. He displayed a site plan and said that they would like to move the swimming area and expand it. A N.U.R.P. basin will be used and the existing oak trees will be saved. They are trying to set the building in without disrupting the trees. Johnson referred to the Staff report of July 23. It outlines the building location and area consistent with the 1986 master plan. Planning Commission and Council are favorable. Dye had questions on parking spaces. • Meyer said there were 130 spaces and 6 handicapped spaces. Vasaly asked about the loss of vegetation. Meyer answered that there was no significant vegetation where the buildings will be - no mature trees of value. There are mature oaks that will shield the building. Vasaly asked if the high water mark will affect the buildings. Meyer said probably not. The pond is 860' the lake is 854' and the embankment (building) would be at 8741 . The road will be located between Raspberry Hill and Cherokee Trail. Approval of the DNR and Corp of Engineers has been received. He said that the disadvantage of code requirement is that the building would be placed further into the hill and farther away from the beach. Johnson said that there is special mention in code that "variance may be appropriate" in large areas for public use. This would make the building more accessible to the lake shore. Curt and Kay Batco came forward to ask what would prevent them from looking at these buildings. They live south and east of • the property, along the lakeshore. Now they see these trees and beaches. Meyer answered that the buildings will be cedar sided, gray, 4 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 and tucked into the woods. Mr. Batco said it was the boat area building that concerned him the most. Meyer said that it will be 65' back from the water. It will have security lighting at night. Mr. Batch said he would like a boat house, but cannot have one as it would be too close to the water. But, in this instance it is being done. He said he was the only resident who got notice of this request. Even if others are not within the 5001 , they are all affected. Wilkus asked why the boat house would be put on the S.E. side. Meyer said it was the primary use area. Vasaly asked Meyer to describe the lighting on the boat rental facility. . Meyer said it would be lit with wall packs that downlight and do not shine out directly. There will be one on each side of the building. Batco asked why the lighting was needed. The park is closed. Meyer said it was a security measure. Vasaly asked why the buildings were not moved farther away from the lake. Meyer said the area back farther was heavily wooded and also the handicapped accessibility requirement becomes more of a problem when the building is moved back because it becomes higher. Johnson suggested that some mature trees be added on the Batco's side of the building. Meyer said that some types of evergreens can't grow in such a wet area. It is 1500' to the edge of the nearest property line. Dye noted that if this were a development, it would be closer to the property lines than this building will be. • Vasaly said she sympathizes with the neighbors regarding the lights and characteristics of the area. City code does allow for flexibility of the project. The mature oak trees and 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 handicapped access problems need to be considered. Wilkus suggested a footcandles and glare review for the lighting. Johnson said that can be requested. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve request 93-32 with the hardship cited that the City code states that such variances "may be appropriate in large areas for public use". Conditions of the approval are that Staff review the screening of the building and the lighting plan. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Request #93-33 by Aviation Charters for 9960 Flying Cloud Drive (1) to permit a front yard parking setback of lot . City Code requires a 50, front yard setback; (2) to permit 15 parking stalls. City Code requires 54 Parking stalls; (3) to permit exterior building materials of 45% masonry and 55% metal. • City Code requires 75% face brick, glass, and stone and not more than 25% other building materials. Mr. Gary Touche of Touche Montgomery Architects came forward to present the request. He said that the variance was stated in the packet and that there is no zoning classification now in the ordinances that deals with the airport. Variances are necessary because of the use. Plans are for a new terminal. The ramp area would stay the same. There would be some additional landscaping. The exterior would be rock faced concrete block, porcelain, and brick. The hangar would be a metal sided building. He displayed drawings of the proposal. Johnson said the request has been to the Planning Commission and the Council. The airport is in a public district. It has been there since the 19401s. It has never been to the same status as other commercial areas in the city. The city has been requesting an upgrade on the materials on the buildings at the airport, and did not want to hold up this project. This building will have office, conference and pilot rooms as well as a hangar area. The rock part will be most visible from 169. The metal part will be somewhat screened. The parking setback is difficult. An area is needed for snow storage also. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved, but wants sewer and water changes. The Council was favorable, • but made sewer and water recommendations. Any approval should be contingent upon Council action. It should be communicated 6 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 to MAC that there will be no future variances. There has been no input from neighbors. Anderson asked why code cannot be complied with regarding the outside building materials of the building. Touche that 75% is restrictive for this type of building. There are large clear spans and metal panels. They tried to make the building meet the intent of the code by putting the office near 169. Typically, this type of building is all metal. Anderson said that the airport needs improvement. Is the expense a problem? Touche said it was the expense,and also unnecessary. Anderson said that this was also true in warehouse districts. Touche said that airport buildings are different than others. • Johnson said that one side of the building is entirely composed of metal hangar doors. The interior side of the building faces the runway. Anderson asked if this would be a one time variance. Johnson said that it would until the utility plan is resolved. Dye asked if the office area elevations are brick. Touche said yes, they were brick. Vasaly asked why this needed to be done now. Is anything wrong with the facility? Touche said it was too small and the business was growing. They have leased three other hangars. Vasaly asked why there was a 10' setback. Touche said it exists now and they are not changing it. Johnson said that code states a minimum width for driving lane and stalls. . Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve Variance 93-33 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 subject to the recommendations of Staff Report, contingent upon City Council approval, and that it be communicated to M.A.C. that no future variance requests are to be submitted for commercial businesses (site plan, review process) until MAC submits for City approval utility plans and construction schedule for the airport area of the building faces the runway. Anderson suggested an amendment that the proponent comply with Staff recommendations and work with Staff to maximize screening to parking area and part of the exterior of the building. Dye accepted the amendment. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #93-34 by James M. Satterstrom of 9818 Squire Lane to permit a garage addition on the front of the existing garage creating a 20.51 front yard setback. City Code requires a 30, front yard setback. James Satterstrom came forward to present the request. He said they would like a variance on the setback for a garage addition. He has a three stall garage now and wants to bring it out towards the front. He understands the setback situation but his property is at the end of the cul de sac and adding on to the garage will not be very noticeable. The home was built with 20 x 9.5 stalls (small) . There is not enough storage space on the property. They had considered a storage barn for the back yard, but it is a run off area and floods. He would like to go all the way across the front and bring the garage out 101 . The entry way would then be more in line with other homes in the area, with the front door set back. Johnson said that this area is part of the Prairie East Development that allows 20' setback for corner lots, but not cul de sacs. The proponent wants to construct in the front area as he has a large drainage swale in the back yard. The size of the addition could be reduced or the stalls could be staggered. There have been no letters in opposition or support. Vasaly asked if the neighbors were in support of the request. Had he suggested the plans suggested by the city or the staggering of the stalls? Satterstrom answered that the neighbors are not at all opposed 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 to it. Staggering the stalls would cost about $2,500 more. Vasaly asked how the proponent had determined how far out he wanted to build the addition. Wilkus stated he had visited the area and believes the addition toward the cul-de-sac will not be in keeping with the neighborhood character. Other members agreed. Satterstrom answered that the stalls would be about half again as large (20' to 301) . Anderson said she did not understand the hardship although she does understand the need. Codes are for uniformity. Requests from others have been turned down. Satterstrom said he had contacted the Crime Prevention Specialists and vandalism may be a problem if the vehicles cannot be inside. The neighborhood starts to look unattractive when vehicles sit outside. Vehicle thefts in Eden Prairie rose 36% in 1992 . There is a passageway from cul de sac to cul de • sac for children in the neighborhood. The temptation for theft and vandalism is there. Anderson said she would have a hard time voting for this request. The proponent already has a three car garage. Many others have only a one car garage. The proponent feels that the hardship is that the City had constructed the neighborhood in such a way that he is unable too have a storage shed in the back yard and he wants to make the area attractive to neighbors. Dye asked if there was adequate space in the back for the storage shed to be built (on the west side as you look at the home) . Satterstrom said that there was a 12' elevation drop in that area and also in another area. Vasaly had questions regarding the back yard and drainage area. Satterstrom said the drainage area in the back yard goes the entire length and the yard fills up when it rains. The water has come up as far as their deck posts in the past. • Vasaly asked if an engineer's opinion had been requested on construction of a structure there. Satterstrom said that one can be constructed there, but the 9 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 accessibility would not be good after rains. Wilkus closed the public hearing. Wilkus said he would have a hard time approving this request based upon past history. He said that a three car garage should be adequate and it has not been demonstrated that a storage building cannot be located elsewhere. MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board deny Variance 93-34 on the grounds that there is no hardship. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Motion denied. Wilkus told the proponent that he could appeal the decision to the Council. F. Request #93-35 by Penelope Needham of 8685 Westwind Circle to uermit a screen porch addition at the rear of the home creating a 10-, rear yard setback. City Code requires a 20, rear yard setback. Penelope Needham came forward to present the variance request. She displayed photos of the area of the back yard and front of the house. The home is in The Preserve. She would like a screened porch off the patio door. There is a 10' grass pathway that separates the back yards. She had marked on the photos where the porch would be positioned. The porch would be 12' x 141 . It was made to fit with the house plan. The variance is needed for one corner. There is lots of open space. The Preserve Review Association Design Committee has approved it. The neighbors approve of it also. Care was taken to maintain the original style. The hardship would be that if this were located somewhere else, it would not fit in as well. Johnson said that the porch could be slid farther to the north, but it would need to be connected to a walkway. There will still be a visual difference and there will be screening. The Preserve Association reviewed and approved the structure. No opposition was received from neighbors. Dye noted that if the walkway was included, the setback would be adequate. Vasaly said that this is actually 20 from the lot line, as there is a 10' "cushion" . • Anderson asked if the variance could be reduced. Johnson said sometimes rooms get difficult to use if they are 10 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 too narrow. Anderson asked if the proponent was open to landscape screening from the lot line. Needham answered that she was open to that suggestion. Dye asked if this porch would be screened or all season use. Needham answered that it would be a screened porch. Mary Bolls from the audience spoke up to say that she had no objections. She said she lived two houses to the south. Wilkus closed the public hearing. Vasaly asked how this differs from the previous request. Both are needs for additional space. Wilkus said that this can be screened and will not be a visual intrusion, and this lot has a 10' buffer versus the garage • which cannot be screened in the front. Dye said that there were extenuating circumstances, considering the 10' path separating backyards. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-35 to add a screen porch and allow for a 10' rear yard set back. Conditions would be that the landscaping plans be reviewed and approved by City Staff. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. G. Request #93-36 by the City of Eden Prairie for north of Sincletree Lane. east of Prairie Center Drive and west of Eden Road (1) To permit a water tower height of 1901 in the Rural Zoning District. City Code maximum height is 65• ; (2) to permit a tower height of 190, in a shoreland area (Lake Idlewild) . City Code maximum height permitted is 301 . Jean Johnson presented the variance request. She showed the location of the water tower on a map. There is a shoreland ordinance limiting structures to 30' maximum height. This will be the third water storage plant for Eden Prairie. It is • needed for general water usage as well as by fire fighting purposes. It is believed it will be the final tower for Eden Prairie. There is no conflict with the airport. The tank has a 78' diameter and the pedestal ha a 48' diameter. There is 11 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 the possibility of clocks being incorporated into the structure. Planning Commission review was not necessary and Council has reviewed and approved. There has been no feed back from the DNR. The tower site will be city property and road access will be an easement. Vasaly asked why this site was chosen. Johnson said in the downtown area, there are water pressure problems. Dye asked if access would be from Eden Road. Johnson answered yes, it would be from Eden Road. Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board grant Variance 93-36 citing the hardship that it is needed for water storage in that area. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. Reciuest #93-37 by Kinkos for Eden Prairie Convenience Center, Eden Road to permit a sign height of 301 . City Code maximum sign height is the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District is 201 . Jack Herald came forward to present the variance. He represented Kinko Copy Center. Information was passed out regarding the request. He said that they are open 24 hours a day and the hardship is that they are below grade of the road. They would like a 30' high sign to get good visibility. Johnson said that Eden Prairie sign code does allow two free standing signs when there are two frontages. This site has two frontages. Staff visited the site and a 25' height for the sign would be better. If this is approved, she would recommend that the parking island be redone with landscaping and ground cover. Notices regarding the request went out, but there were no comments. Dye said that he felt that 25' height should be adequate. Anderson asked if there was a problem with reducing the size of the sign. • Herald said no, but 25' would put it at sidewalk height. The main idea they want to put across is that they don't close - they are open all night. 12 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 Anderson asked if there is a problem with Staff recommendations about landscaping. Herald answered no, that they wanted to do that. Anderson asked if the wall signage would be limited to one instead of two. Herald answered that they have a permit for only one wall sign now. Vasaly asked if the sign would be lit all night. Herald answered yes, they want to advertise that they do not close. Johnson said that several others were lit all night also. Wilkus asked if there was only one wall sign. Was the square footage agreed upon? What about window signs? • Herald answered that there was only one wall sign. Johnson said that the square footage had been set and there were no window signs. Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance 93-37 for a 25' sign height. Landscaping must be approved by the City Staff and one wall sign would be allowed. An amendment was suggested to state that the hardship is the purpose of the ordinance is that signs have particular heights, but this lot is below roadway grade, therefore it is appropriate. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. I. Request #93-38 by Robert H. Mason Homes for east of Sandy Pointe and south of Red Rock Lake, proposed Boulder Pointe 5th Addition for shoreland variances: Doug MacNamara came forward to present the Variance Request. He said he is the Vice President of Mason Homes. The variance is based upon a 1988 PUD approval. They had understood that • the variance in 1988 included the 5th addition. It did not. Johnson said the development was originally from 1983. There were limited shoreland variances granted. This would be 13 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 similar to other developments in the area. It has the Planning Commission approval and will come before the Council in September. Vasaly asked why another lot was needed. Johnson said that this is less lots than shown in 1983. MacNamara said that so many of those sites far exceeded minimum requirements. Vasaly felt that this was not a question of averages. Larger lots can be sold for more. MacNamara said that there is a meandering shoreline - it is an odd shaped site. A certain width is wanted at the front end of the lots. Considering square footage, all are well in excess. Johnson noted that the parkland took away a lot of area. Vasaly asked if trees would be lost. • MacNamara answered that no trees on the shoreline would be lost. Dye felt the proposal was feasible. Vasaly noted that a hardship cannot be just economic. Johnson said the proposal was consistent with the development plan and greater than the DNR requires. Anderson asked if this would increase the frequency of variances in the future. Johnson said that code would require an 85' lot. The proponents are making theirs larger. Anderson said that the hardship was that the proponent misunderstood at the time the original plan was developed. It was seen as a part of a bigger plan. The variance was not given for all of it then, only a part. Vasaly had questions on the drainage of the lots. MacNamara answered that the road side drainage will drain towards the road and the lake side will drain towards the lake, with lots of vegetation in between. Wilkus closed the public hearing. 14 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance 93-38 as submitted. The hardship is that this as part of a PUD submitted earlier. They are following up on an earlier plan that was approved. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. J. R_ egmest #93-39 by Arteka Natural Green Corporation of 15180 Martin Drive to use parts of the site for 5 Years to store vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton and to allow part of the storage area to be improved with rock instead of asphalt. Johnson noted that the proponent had requested a continuance. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue Variance 93-39 to the September meeting. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. R. Request #93-40 by Hone of 15931 Pioneer Trail to Permit a Rural lot size of 6.9 acres. City Code • requires a 10 acre minimum lot size. Rollie Crawford came forward to present the variance request. He said he was an attorney representing the Hone family. The parcel is on the east side of Eden Prairie Road, on the north and south sides of County Road 1. It was at one time a single parcel that was farmed. It still is to an extent. The two parcels were never given separate identities. The north parcel was conveyed to Wheaton College and now there is a buyer. At this time the deed should be recorded. There is a need to legally split the parcel. An administrative lot split is needed. The south parcel will be left (less than 10 acres) and this requires a variance. It is somewhat of a formality. This is not creating a variance, just recognizing what exists. Consent of contingent property owners is needed and they have that. There had been no opposition to the request that they are aware of. The site is already two parcels. The city guide plan shows different guide plans and zoning for each parcel. This is a technicality that needs to be remedied. The hardship is that Co. Road 1 created the situation. There is nothing that can be done to remedy the situation. It is not a self imposed situation. Reasonable conditions can be imposed: 1. Action to be filed within one year. (reasonable) 2. Non agricultural vehicles and equipment to be removed • within 6 months. (not reasonable) 3 . Future changes or buildings on property be submitted to the City for approval. (reasonable) 15 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 The request is made that conditions 1 and 3 be included in the request, but not item 2 . Johnson said that the gross area is 18.7 acres. It was split by Co. Rd 1. Staff does not have information to know what arrangements occurred between the owner and County at the time the road was platted. An administrative division is now requested. Staff has been aware of agricultural uses on this property for many years. The issue of the vehicles could be addressed now or when application for the site plan is made. The lot is rural. Johnson suggested that a condition could be added instead to say that no new agricultural equipment shall come on to the site. Dan Hone agreed to this proposal. Vasaly asked if the other parcel would be converted to residential use. • Crawford answered yes. Vasaly felt that there could be some nuisance problems and that the Staff conditions do relate to the variance request. Crawford said this Board is not dealing with the use of the southerly parcel. Vasaly said the use of parcel 2 affects parcel 1. Dan Hone said he had a problem with the 116 months" statement. He will discuss any future changes in the southern property with Staff. Anderson felt that the use of Property 2 is related to Property 1. She understands the need to divide the parcel. The storage of equipment issue needs to be resolved. Wilkus closed the public hearing. Johnson suggested that if the proponent felt that a 6 month time was not adequate, it could be worded "no new" agricultural equipment be brought to the site. She asked how long the non-agricultural equipment would be on the site. • Hone answered that at this point there will not be a use change. The use will be as it is or less. He does not want to make it a storage area. He does need the use of the loaders, trucks, etc at the present time. He said he was not sure when 16 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1993 this would change. He wants a vegetable market there and possibly a green house also. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board grant Variance Request 93-40 to clarify the titles to parcels 1 and 2 and to separate them. This would grant the lot size of 6.9 acres. The approval is based upon the proponent adhering to the conditions in the staff report. Condition number 2 shall read "No new equipment/vehicles not related to agricultural use shall be brought on the property. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS Anderson was concerned on the garage enlargement variance • request that was heard this evening. She felt the Council should be briefed and asked to give serious consideration to the request. She would like some direction from the Council if they see fit to grant this. It would set a tone for future requests. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Vasaly seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. 17