HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/10/1987 APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
• THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 7 :30 P .M. CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DR .
EDEN PRAIRIE,' MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS : ACTING CHAIRMAN: STEVE LONGMAN,
RON KRUEGER, HANLEY ANDERSON,
ROGER SANDVICK, WILLIAM
AROCKIASAMY, LYN DEAN,
DWIGHT HARVEY .
BOARD STAFF : ZONING ADMINISTRATOR : JEAN JOHNSON
RECORDING SECRETARY : SHARON SWENSON
ROLL CALL : ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT RON KRUEGER AND HANLEY
ANDERSON, WITH LYN DEAN ARRIVING AT 7 : 40
I . MINUTES
A. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987
MOTION : HARVEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 16, 1987 . SANDVICK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
II . VARIANCES
• A. Variance Request 87-50, submitted by Mark Seavall Homes for prope�rt located
at 10510 West Riverview Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally describes
as: Lot B, Registered Lam—Survey Number 600. The-request is for a
variance from City Code, CFapter Il; Section 1Y.M, 3u6division T,- B, to
ermit p1a�tt n� of ro osea Lot 1 w-i5 a lot width at the street of 50.67
City Code requires 951 and ro ose�Lot7- with a lot width at the street
of 36'(C�it� Code re uires 901 . This variance request is continued from
tree Au ust-13, 1987, Board of �ustments and Appeals meeting.
BOARD MEMBERS NOTED MR . SEAWALLS LETTER OF 12-1-87 WITHDRAWING
HIS REQUEST.
B. Request #87-62, submitted b Roger L. Lindeman for property located east of
U.S. Highway 169 and south of Willis- m Mini-Storage, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The req�ue�st is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 3�,
Section 1.b� Su�isioh 2, B, 1T To permit an irustrial lot size of
708 acres (CitX Code requires a minimum lot size of _fires in the I-7
Zoning District) , 2) to permit an avers e7ot w ath of 15I-feet --city Come
minimum of wit requirement is 20 feet ,77 ivision T, H, to permit
8 parking stalls City Code re uTr—e 6 par ing stalls .
MR . BRIAN OLSON REPRESENTED ROGER L LINDEMAN . HE STATED THAT HIS
CLIENT WOULD LIKE THE PROPERTY TO BE RECLASSIFIED I-2. THE TWO
MAIN VARIANCES NEEDED WOULD BE : (1) THAT THE EXISTING PROPERTY
1
DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM OF 2 ACRES . IT IS ONLY 1 .93 ACRES .
• (2) THAT THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH NEEDED IS 200 FEET, AND THIS
LOT IS ONLY 151 FEET WIDE . NO SET BACK OR PARKING STALL VAR-
IANCES WOULD BE REQUIRED . EVERYTHING ELSE CONFORMS .
SANDVICK ASKED IF THE REQUEST HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL.
OLSON RESPONDED THAT IT HAD.
SANDVICK ASKED IF THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ANY SUGGESTIONS .
OLSON RESPONDED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONCERN ABOUT
ACCESS, BUT AS FAR AS HE KNEW AT THE PRESENT IT WAS OK .
L.YN DEAN ARRIVED AT THIS TIME . (7 : 40)
AROCKIASAMY ASKED WHY THE STAFF REPORT STATED THE ACREAGE
AS 1 .68 AND OLSON STATED IT AS 1 . 93.
OLSO'N CLARIFIED THIS BY SAYING THAT THEY HAD MEASURED FROM
THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, AND TECHNICALLY THAT PROPERTY DOES
NOT BELONG TO THEM. ACTUALLY, IT WOULD BE 1. 68 ACRES .
HARVEY ASKED .ABOUT A FUTURE ROAD AT THE SITE-IF THAT WAS
A PART OF THIS VARIANCE, AND IF NOT, WHY IT WAS NOT IN-
CLUDED IN THIS REQUEST.
• OLSON RESPONDED THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THE ROAD
WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO STANDARDS .
HARVEY ASKED ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THIS .
OLSON RESPONDED THAT IT WAS 24' , BUT WILL BE 70 ' IN THE
FUTURE .
.JOHNSON ADDED THAT A 70 ' RIGHT OF WAY WAS NEEDED FOR INDUS-
TRIAL PROPERTY OR OFFICE PROPERTY.
HARVEY ASKED ABOUT THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH
WAS LAND LOCKED. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR THE OWNER OF
THAT PROPERTY.
.JOHNSON ADDED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO RESOLUTION FROM THE
DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER .
SANDVICK ASKED IF THE OWNER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OR IF HE WAS
PRESENT AT THE MEETING . (NO RESPONSE FROM AUDIENCE)
OLSON STATED THAT ROGER LINDEMAN HAD ASKED TO PURCHASE IT
SEVERAL TIMES AND THAT THE OWNER HAD REFUSED TO SELL . HE
IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THE ROAD WILL GO THROUGH HIS PROPERTY.
2
HARVEY ASKED IF THAT WAS ALL THE PROPERTY THE OWNER
• HAD IN THAT AREA.
OLSON REPLIED THAT IT WAS NOT. HE OWNS MORE AND LIVES NEARBY .
LONGMAN STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN FACT BECOMING I -2 .
SANDVICK ASKED IF THE ITEM CONCERNING PARKING STALLS HAD
BEEN DROPPED.
JOHNSON ANSWERED THAT IT HAD.
LONGMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY OTHERS PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. (NO RESPONSE)
MOTION : SANDVICK MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE VARIANCE
REQUEST #87-62 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
AND CONDITIONS :
, FINDING : PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT
WITH PROPOSED VARIANCES AND FOUND THE PLAN ACCEPTABLE .
CITY COUNCIL HAS APPROVED 1ST READING .
SANDVICK ADDED THAT THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 3,' WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN
CARE OF.
NARVEY SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED 5-0 .
C . Request #87-72, submitted by Stuart Nolan for property located at 7020
Willow-Creek Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Tie request is for a variance
from Ci t Code, Chapter ,
_� _ a� Section .50 entitled Shoreland�Management,
3u63ivision'; Bt to ermit—a Tow grade sw�imminni pool 5' from the
r inary High Water Mark 6f Brvan-t L`a ce(City Cod re reess a—I00' setba-cTc
from the Ordinary Hsi h_ Wa_ ter Mark L�jSectionit.0 Sudivi sioii_ 6, to
permit a—building addition from a sic�otlineL(City Cone—re wires a
minimum side yard setbackof7' in the RT-2fonin9 District .
MR . STUART NOLAN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD . HE VERIFIED THAT
EACH MEMBER HAD RECEIVED THE SITE PLAN . HE STATED THAT THE
HOME WAS BUILT IN 1960, AND THAT HE IS CURRENTLY REMODELING
IT AND HAS RUN INTO SOME PROBLEMS : (1) ON THE EAST END, THE
CORNER OF WHERE HE WANTS TO EXPAND THE GARAGE, IT EXCEEDS
THE 15 ' SETBACK BY 4' . (2) REGARDING THE POOL, HE HAD NOTED
THAT VARIANCES FOR SEVERAL HAD BEEN GRANTED IN THE AREA
THAT WERE WITHIN THE 100 ' SETBACK FROM THE LAKE . HIS POOL
WOULD BE UP 40 OR 50 FEET FROM THE LAKE AND NOT EVEN VIS-
IBLE FROM THE LAKE . HE WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE THE POOL
SO CLOSE TO HIS HOUSE .
• SANDVICK ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER STRUCTURAL REASON
WHY THE POOL COULD NOT BE CLOSER TO THE HOUSE .
3
• JOHNSON STATED THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM HOUSE TO
POOL WAS 7 OR 8 FEET.
DEAN ASKED WHAT THE DISTANCE WAS FROM THE HOUSE TO THE
POOL ON THAT ONE CORNER .
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT THE DISTANCE WAS 20 ' .
HARVEY WONDERED WHY WE WERE CONSIDERING A 15 ' VARIANCE
WHEN IT COULD BE REDUCED.
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT IT COULD BE REDUCED, BUT THAT NOTHING
WOULD BE ACCOMPOLISHED BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE
LAKE EITHER WAY.
HARVEY ASKED WHY IT COULD NOT BE 15 ' CLOSER TO THE HOUSE .
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT IT WOULD THEN BE ONLY 5 ' FROM THE HOUSE .
HARVEY ASKED IF IT WERE ON TOP OF THE HILL .
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT IT WAS, 40 ' UP FROM THE LAKE .
HARVEY ASKED HOW CLOSE THE NEIGHBOR ON THE EAST WAS, AND IF
NOLAN HAD TALKED TO HIM.
• JOHNSON ANSWERED THAT THE NEIGHBORS GOT NOTICES ON THE MATTER,
AND THAT THE NEIGHBOR ON THE EAST WAS ABOUT SO ' AWAY .
NOLAN STATED THAT AS FAR AS HE KNEW, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM
WITH THE NEIGHBORS, ALTHOUGH HE HAD NOT TALKED TO THE
NEIGHBOR ON THE EAST.
HARVEY ASKED IF THERE WAS A SEPTIC SYSTEM THERE AND IF THE
DRAIN FIELD WAS NEAR THE POOL .
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT THERE WAS A SEPTIC SYSTEM, BUT THAT THE
DRAIN FIELD WAS NOT NEAR THE POOL .
SANDVICK ASKED IF IT WAS AN IN GROUND POOL .
NOLAN RESPONDED THAT IT WAS .
LONGMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE .
MRS FREEBERG SPOKE UP AND STATED THAT SHE WAS THE NEIGHBOR
TO THE EAST. SHE HAD JUST ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AND WAS
CONCERNED AND CONFUSED ABOUT THE LETTER SHE HAD RECEIVED .
SHE HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO THE VARIANCE, BUT DID STATE THAT
• SHE DID A LOT OF REFINISHING IN HER BACK YARD AND VALUED
HER PRIVACY. SHE REMINDED NOLAN THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK
AT THESE PROJECTS SOMETIMES AND DID NOT WANT HIM TO OBJECT
TO THIS HOBBY OF HERS .
4
DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE CLARIFYING THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
• BETWEEN NOLAN AND FREEBERG.
LONGMAN THANKED MRS FREEBERG FOR HER COMMENTS .
HARVEY ASKED IF THE PART OF THE GARAGE THAT EXCEEDED THE
SETBACK CONTAINED LIVING QUARTERS .
OV� IT .
NOLAN ANSWERED THAT IT DID THERE WAS A BEDROOM A B
NOLAN SHOWED A LARGE DRAWING-MORE DISUCSSION
MOTION : DEAN MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE VAR-
IANCE #87-72 AS SUBMITTED.SANDVICK SECONDED THE
MOTION AND IT PASSED 5-0.
D. Request #87-73, submitted by Lase�rd nee for property located at 6690 Shady
Oak Road, E en Prairie, Minnesota. The request- is for a variance from City
Code,—ChapTe—r11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 4, E, to permi—twall signs
to�tali�n 95 square feet City Coda maximum wall Sign for a building tenant
is square feet .__
BRIAN D R)LOPF REPRESENTED LASERDYNE IN ASKING FOR THE VAR-
IANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE :" THEY ASKED THE THE ALLOWED
SIGNAGE FOR THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BE INCREASED AS THE
• PRESENT SIGNS WERE INADEQUATE. THEY HAVE EXPANDED TO ONE
HALF OF THE TOTAL OFFICE SPACE AND FELT THAT THE ALLOWED
AREA FOR SIGNAGE SHOULD EXPAND WITH THE AREA OCCUPIED. HE
HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT EACH TENANT WAS ALLOWED 50 So . FT.
SANDVICK ASKED IF I3LOPF UNDERSTOOD THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
VARIANCE WHICH HE WAS ASKING FOR ON BEHALF OF LASERDYNE .
THIS VARIANCE IS 87% ABOVE CODE.
IDLOPF ANSWERED THAT THOSE FIGURES WERE CORRECT BASED ON
WHAT HE WAS GIVEN . THERE HAS BEEN A REORGANIZATION OF THE
COMPANY AND ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WAS NEEDED TO IDENTIFY THE
COMPANY TO CUSTOMERS .
SANDVICK ASKED IF CUSTOMERS HAD A DIFFICULT TIME TO FIND
THE COMPANY.
.IDLOPF ANSWERED THAT THEY ARE AN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
AND THAT MANY CUSTOMERS ARE FROM OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
SANDVICK RESTATED HIS QUESTION AS TO WHETHER CUSTOMERS
HAD A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING THE COMPANY .
lhDLOPF SAID HE CAN ONLY ESTIMATE THAT ABOUT 20 CUSTOMERS
• PER DAY WOULD COME TO THE COMPANY.
HARVEY ASKED- HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THE EXISTING SIGN TAKES UP?
5
• IDLOPF RESPONDED THAT IT WAS 22 ' . (LUMONICS)
L.ONGMAN STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THERE WAS
AN ADDITIONAL 45 SQ . FT. IT WAS HIS REACTION THAT THiE
VARIANCE WAS ONE OF CONVENIENCE . HE FELT THAT A SIG NI
CLOSER TO CODE COULD BE CREATED. I�DLOPF' S ARGUMENT BOUT
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDING OCCUPIED BY HIS COMP NY
MAY HAVE SOME MERIT, BUT HE STILL FELT THE SIGN COULD BE
MADE TO BE CLOSER TO CODE .
IDLOPF SAID THAT THE EXISTING LASERDYNE SIGN WAS TOO GOOD
TO BE SCRAPPED .
HARVEY STATED THAT BOTH THE LASERDYNE AND THE LUMONICS
SIGNS ARE VERY CLEAR . HE ASKED WHY THEY DID NOT MAKE
LUMONICS SIGN THE SAME SIZE AS LASERDYNE AND STAY WITHIN
THE CODE .
IJ_DLOPFSTATED THAT THEY WERE NOW CALLED LUMONICS LASERDYNE
AND FELT THAT THE REQUEST WAS NEEDED FOR PROPER IDENTIF-
ICATION .
LONGMAN STATED THAT HE STILL FELT IT WAS A REQUEST OF
CONVENIENCE AND THAT AS TO THE SCRAPPING OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGN, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS NOT ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS
• IN THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE .
IDLOPF SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW HOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
WAS ARRIVED AT: LUMONICS HAD 24" HIGH LETTERS AND LASERDYNE
HAD 18" HIGH LETTERS .
.JOHNSON STATED THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNS IS DETER-
MINED BY DRAWING A RECTANGLE AROUND THE LETTERING, NOT
JUST ON THE HEIGHT OF THE LETTERS . THAT IN CONSIDERATION
OF THIS, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE LETTERS IS ALSO INCLUDEDA
WHICH APPLIES IN THE CASE OF STACKED WORDS, TOO .
SANDVICK STATED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF HARDSHIP
AND THAT HE FELT IT SHOULD BE TABLED FOR A MONTH . HE
SUGGESTED THATI)_DLOPF GO TO HIS SIGN DEPARTMENT AND THAT
THEY RETHINK THE PROJECT. THEN THEY SHOULD BRING ANOTHER
REQUEST IN AGAIN NEXT MONTH.
HARVEY STATED THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT EASILY GRANT SIGN
VARIANCES .
SANDVICK SAID THAT EACH ONE SHOULD BE LOOKED AT,- INDIVIDUALLY .
IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE ALMOST 100% OVER CODE . THE SIGN
ITSELF IS VERY LEGIBLE.
II_DLOPFSTATED THAT HE APPRECIATED THE BOARD S COMMENTS AND
THAT THAT HIS COMPANY WAS ANXIOUS TO GET THE NEW SIGNS UP .
IF NECESSARY, THEY COULD TAKE DOWN THE EXISTING LASERDYNE
SIGN .
6
LONGMAN STATED THAT IDLOPF HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE
• BOARD VOTE ON THE ISSUE. HE ASKED IF HE UNDERSTOOD THAT
DEDOLF WAS SAYING THAT THEY WOULD REMOVE THE EXISTING
LASERDYNE SIGN AND INSTEAD HAVE LUMONICS LASERDYNE PRODUCTS?
IDLOPF RESPONDED YES .
.JOHNSON SAID THAT IT WOULD BE 76 SQ . FT AS OPPOSED �O
50 SQ . FT. , PER CODE.
LONGMAN SAID THAT IT SEEMED THAT WE WERE CHANGING VARIANCES
IN MIDSTREAM. HE SAID THAT THE BOARD WAS TRYING TO MAIN'
TAIN THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND AT THE SAME TIME KEEP THE
SPIRIT OF THE THING.
HARVEY SUGGESTED THAT THE COMPANY NARROW THE GAP IN THE SIGNS .
SANDVICK SAID THAT HE FELT THAT IDLOPF SHOULD GO BACK TO
HIS COMPANY AND REDRAW THE PROPOSAL, AND THEN BRING IT
BACK. IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD TO KEEP EDEN PRAIRIE
WITHIN CODE . ANOTHER MONTH WOULD NOT CAUSE A HARDSHIP .
IDLOPF SAID HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO OFFER ANYTHING OTHER
THAN WHAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED., HE WOULD CONSULT WITH HIS STAFF .
MOTION : SANDVICK MOVED THAT URIAN:E REOUEsr #87-73 BE ODNTINJE'D
. UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING, JANUARY 14, 1987 .
AROCKASIAMY SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS PASSED 5-0 .
IhDLOPF ASKED IF HE COULD GET SOME ASSISTANCE ON THE LAYOUT
OF SIGNAGE AND INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE .
JOHNSON ANSWERED THAT HE COULD IF HE WOULD COME INTO THE
OFFICE .
E . Request #87-74, submitted �Z Minnesota Valve and Fitting Company for
property located at: See Reverse Side. The request is for a variance from
City Code, Chapter 11, Section Ti . , Subdivision 2, B, ( To permit
lattin of the pFi-ro ossi I-Tlot less han 2 acres (C� Code requires
acre min mi u� , To pe met pla in o -the ropose I-2�ot with a Tot
depth less than M6'7Cit Code re uires a lot depth of 00' �, ( To
ermit
platting of the ro osed I-fit with a lot width ess thanTU0' (Cit Code
requires 70-67, To permit a Fuilding Floor Area Ratio aEoove (C�
Code maximum building Floor Area Ratio is TRTI TST To permit a proposed
front yard building setback of 41' and 161 from Proposed future roads Chit
oTe requires 00' ),7T To erFm t- a side a--r ui in setback of 14.$'
City Code requires �.�0' Section 11 .0 Sub3ivisio H, 7 To permit=
parking stalls it-Code would required on use of building floor
area uti i�'zation to ep rmit a side yard parking setback of 5' City
Code requires io.
•
.JOHNSON STATED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS LOCATED SOUTH
• OF Hwy 5 AND WEST OF WATER PRODUCTS .
RAY SEDLACK, OWNER AND OFFICER OF MN VALVE AND FITTING CO .
PRESENTED THE VARIANCE . HE STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE
UPGRADING OF Hwy 51 MANY CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE IIIN
THE AREA . MANY WILL TAKE PLACE IN H.IS PROPERTY IF THE
VARIANCES ARE APPROVED, INCLUDING MAJOR CHANGES INITHE
PARKING LOT, ENTRANCES, LANDSCAPING, ETC . IT WILL IENEFIT
THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE A PLEASANT VIEW OF THE BUILDING WILL
BE PROVIDED FROM Hwy 5 AND THE ACCESS ROAD .
SANDVICK ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS .
HARVEY STATED THAT HE HAD NONE ON THIS VARIANCE .
L014GMAN ASKED IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HAD A QUESTION .
ENO RESPONSE) LONGMAN FELT THAT SEDLACK WAS A VICTIM OF
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL.
MOTION : HARVEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE VAR-
IANCE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED. THE VARIANCES REQUESTED
ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE DUE TO THE PROPERTY
TAKING FOR UPGRADING OF ..STATE Hwy 5.
AROCKIASAMY SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 5-0.
• Issue Before the Board - The issue before the Board is whether SuperAmerica has
fulfilled the requirements of final order #87-17 as intended by the Board. The City
would like this determined prior to permitting the opening of the driveway
connection to Terrey Pine Court.. (Please note the attached letter dated, November
24, 1987, from the City, Attorney's office regarding this matter).
The Board should keep in mind the following:
1) The Board included the condition of screening homes at the above referenced
properties as a mitigating factor for the homeowners directly impacted by the
SuperAmerica driveway.
2) Screening was to be acceptable to the homeowners. It appears Mr. Hansing
and SuperAmerica are satisfied with the release agreement.
MR TYSON REPRESENTED SUPER AMERICA. HE STATED THAT THE REQUEST
THEY HAD INCLUDED ALL THE MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD
ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR . THE REASON THAT HE
WAS HERE THIS EVENING WAS TO GET APPROVAL OF THE MANNER
IN WHICH SUPER AMERICA MET ONE OF THE RESIDENTS REQUIREMENT
FOR SCREENING . (RESIDENT WAS MR . HANSING, N .W. CORNER)
THEY HAD DISCUSSED VARIOUS OPTIONS WITH MR . HANSING AND
• HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A MONETARY SETTLEMENT WAS
THE ONLY OPTION AGREEABLE .MR HANSING HAD EXECUTED A RELEASE
OF LIABILITY AGREEMENT FOR SUPER AMERICA, THE CITY, AND BOARD .
8
• MR HANSING WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE SCREENING ISSUE AT A
LATER DATE, AS THE WEATHER WOULD NOT PERMIT IT NOW.
HARVEY ASKED IF MR HANSING HAD AGREED TO IT?
TYSON SAID THAT HE HAD, AND THAT HE HAD TOLD MR HANSING
THAT HE HAD A CHECK IN HIS FILE PENDING THE BOARDS APPROVAL .
SANDVICK ASKED IF HANSING COULD KEEP THE MONEY AND NOT DO
ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCREENING ISSUE .
TYSON SAID THAT HE COULD DO THAT, IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE .
LONGMAN ASKED IF THE NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED . OF THE MEETING
.JOHNSON SAID THAT MR . HANSING WAS NOTIFIED.
LONGMAN ASKED IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD DECIDED IF IT WAS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO DECIDE .
JOHNSON SAID THAT HE HAD .
AROCKIASAMY ASKED IF THE CITY _ATTORNEY HAD LOOKED AT THE
AGREEMENT .
• LONGMAN ANSWERED THAT HE HAD.
LONGMAN ASKED IF THE STAFF WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL OTHER
CRITERIA WERE MET.
.JOHNSON SAID THAT THEY WERE .
SANDVICK ASKED IF THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE OR A CONSENSUS .
,JOHNSON SAID THAT SHE FELT THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE INTENT OF THE VARIANCE HAD BEEN MET.
AROCKIASAMY ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE OWNER DOESN 'T
INSTALL THE SCREENING AND SELLS THE HOME . WHAT ABOUT LIABILITY?
TYSON ANSWERED THAT THE AGREEMENT IS BINDING ON MR HANSING,
HIS HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS . HE ADDED THAT IN THE FUTURE, ANY-
ONE MOVING IN WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND HOW IT IS LAID OUT . THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE THERE .
HARVEY SAID THE BOARD NEEDS TO DECIDE IF THIS CASH DEAL IS
IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE BOARD HAD INTENDED.
.JOHNSON AFFIRMED THAT STATEMENT.
9
• SANDVICK STATED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THE DISCUSSION
HAD TAKEN PLACE PREVIOUSLY, AND WOULD ABSTAIN FOR THAT
REASON . HE DID SUPPORT THE ALTERNATIVE CHOSEN .
MOTION : HARVEY MOVED THAT SUPER AMERICANS CASH SETTLE-
MENT OFFER TO MR . HANSING PROVIDES AN ACCEPTABLE ALTER-
NATIVE TO SATISFY THE VARIANCE .
SANDVICK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 4-0.
SANDVICK ABSTAINED _ BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT
AT THEPREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS., BUT RESTATED THAT HE
SUPPORTED THE VOTE .
MR . HANSING ' S ABSENCE WAS CLEARLY NOTED .
III . OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
V. ADJOURNMENT
• SANDVICK MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADJOURN . HARVEY SECONDED IT.
AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED 5-0.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8 : 25 P .M .
10