Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/09/1989 i APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday February 9, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Arockiasamy, Steve Longman, Scott Anderson , Lyn Dean I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman, Hanley Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30. Roll Call: Hanley Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann, Mike Bozonie, Dwight Harvey All present recited the pledge of allegiance. II. MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1989 Harvey asked that it be noted that his nay vote on page 9, Variance 89-05 • be clarified as being on the basis of sighting and not concept. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of January 12 with the above mentioned addition.Fmernyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (Akemann abstained) III. VARIANCES: Request #88-47, submitted �y American Family Insurance for property located a"t-T= Yell cle &?�o�er rie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from li Section 11.70 us bdivision—T,— D to e�rmi_t a wall si n s . ft. Cit �e permits one wall si n of�G s ft. — �-' —� This variance request was withdrawn Ke uest #89-021, submitted �y Sherwin-Williams Development Corporation for property located along Plaza Drive in front of Menards Center, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter �3� Section 3�02 Subdivision. 2 6 L�UTopermit an accessory structure trash enclosure area from a side lot line. City Code requires 201 2 ection l.�3, Subdivision 3, I to permit a loading facility area ' from a side lot line. C,=ty Code requires a 20, setback. • This variance request was withdrawn. 2 C. Re uest #89-06, submitted �X Janet E. Brown for property located at 6919 , • Autumn Terrace, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described as: Lot 2,Block 2z Maple Leaf Acres 5th Addition. The request is for a variance from it Code, Cha ter U_, Section 11. Sudivision , N-, to -perm as�buiTt attached garage with a side yard setback of 51 . City Code re uires a minimum side yard setback of�6' . _ Gene Sherman ( City Ensyineering Dept) appeared on behalf of Janet Brown.The -City had understood that there had been a division of property, but it had never actually occurred. A home sale & title search revealed the property division did not take place. No deed was ever filed and a variance would be needed to clear the record. There is 15' of easement. Janet Brown will have her property for sale shortly. The corner of the garage is 5' from the property line, rather than 10'as required in the R1-13.5 Zoning District.. There is 21' between the homes. Property owners involved would like to leave things as they are, but just straighten the record on the properties. Harvey asked about the real estate taxes on the property. Sherman answered that the taxation department had straightened that issue out. Harvey asked how difficult it would be to file a lot division. Sherman answered that it had been done, but it cannot be approved without a deed. Harvey asked if it was too late to file. Sherman answered that new owners on the property in question were involved. He felt that they may rot like to deed 5' of their property to someone else. The result of that would be that they would go to Joan Irvine, who would in turn make a claim against the city. Harvey asked about the city needing the full 15' . Sherman answered that they did have the 15' easement recorded. There is-10' on the south lot,and 5' on the plat to the north lot. Freemyer asked if it was between houses.- Sherman answered that it was. _ Freemyer asked if the residents of the south house would decide to put on an addition, what size could be added? Durham answered that they could not put on an addition. Harvey asked if the lot were divided, would it be recorded as' 5' being taken away from the -new buyer on the south lot? Sherman answered yes. He said that Hennepin County Court House recognized the division. • Harvey asked Sherman to clarify that Hennepin County no longer recognizes the . division and that 5' will be theoretically taxed? Sherman answered yes, :that was true. They had tried to clear it up with Joan Irvine, but she felt it was a city mistake and not her problem. 3 i • Anderson asked for input from the audience. There was no response. Sherman said he had made the building department aware of this situation and it may stop a sale in the future. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 89-06 as stated on the proposal: The existing home is non-conforming due to a misunderstanding in recording of a Deed several years ago. The City has the necessary 15' easement recorded for this area. The setback between the existing home and adjacent home to the south is 21' which exceeds the minimum distance between structures in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. The hardship demonstrated being that the distances between the properties/structures have already been set. A variance is a better solution than asking the adjacent landowner for a lot split. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. . D. Request #89-07 submitted b S�lviiaa L. Kark and Allan T. Callander for propertyTted a�Iff AI cresf— Lane, Eden Prair e,-finnes�- Tie request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter1� Section 11.E Subdivision 2,B, to permit a building— addition 8' from a side lot line. Cit Kode re uires a I7 sidi F2rsetback in the R=- Zonin moist it ct. Allan Callander appeared to represent himself and Sylvia Kark in petitioning for the variance. He explained that they had lived in the home for 32-4 years and they have 2 small children. He referred to the letter he had sent to the Board previously. He said that they wanted to improve the deficiencies in this 17 year old home. A first floor family room addition and a slightly expanded kitchen was desired. Because of the nature of the property, they would need to be closertu side lot line than is presently allowed by thecode. The only level spot is behind the garage. To parallel the lot line would require a break in the profile of the side of the house. He felt the princpal hardship was the safety issue and their play areas. He stressed the importance of having the children in sight when they were at play. At present they need to come through the front door or garage and they would like to eliminate that problem. Another option would require a lot division from the neighbor. The neighbor was granted a variance before to set back the house from the street and because of„that there is no physical space left to attempt to purche,se from them. Bozonie asked if the addition were smaller, would a variance be needed? • Callander answered that a variance would be needed for any addition as the corner of the garage would necessitate this. 4 Anderson asked if the neighbors living space was adjacent. • Callander answered that yes, it was living space. The neighbor had put up a fence behind the house, but it was not on the lot line. There is actually more space there than it appears. Akemann asked how the elevation levels compared with Callander's main level and the neighbors home. Callander answered that there was about 8' difference. Akemann asked about the reason for an 18' by 24' addition versus one that would be 20' by 18'? Callander answerd that a full basement was needed in this climate and a full stairwell would need to be put in. Also a closet in the family room was desired. Akemann asked about the possibility of building on a slab. Callan er felt it was not a good choice in Minnesota and he would like the basement for storage area. Freemyer asked about a 24' addition straight off the back--he also wondered how Callander had determined that it would be 8' from the lot line at the closest point. Callander said he had measured it. Freemyer asked how certain Callander was on the lot line position. Callander said they had found one pin, but since the ground was frozen, could not definitely locate the other. He did feel that they were within inches of the location of the pin. Freemyer said he would like to see an as built survey. He asked about easements. Durham answered that there was a 6' drainage and utility easement. Callander noted that the only utility is the telephone line. Akemann asked why the 6' fence of the neighbor was not on the lot line. Callander answered that 'the neighbor had thought it was on the lot line when it was being constructed. Harvey asked if the dimension was 24' width. Callander answered that the 24' referred to the length and 18' was the width. An elevation drawing in the packet. Freemyer asked why the Callanders did not wish to "step" the wall 2 or 4 feet • Callander said they had considered that, but the roof already breaks in 3 places. That would add an additional break. Freemyer said to grant a variance, something unique needed to be identified in the situation. 5 Akemann asked if building would be possible in back without violating the 15' setback. • Callander said a retaining wall was in the back. H Anderson noted that the retaining wall would be disrupted with the installation of the basement anyway. Callander said that a window would need to be blocked off and a triangular addition would be necessary in that instance. H Anderson said he would like to see the Callanders build an addition that would meet code. Callander said they had tried those alternatives, but felt they were not practical. It could be stepped back, but would require a variance anyway and would look unsightly. Harvey noted that an R1-22 District is a large lot district. The Board likes to maintain the separation between the homes. This would mean that they would be allowing the Callanders to go below the next lowest zoning district-- in fact they would be allowing going past two zoning districts. Callander said one could go back at a straight line and cut off the corner. H Anderson said an angled addition would not meet code. • Sylvia Kark said the problem was the topography. The flat area was to the rear of the lot on the back of the house. Callander showed photographs of the back of the home. Akemann asked if a 16' width would be acceptable. Sylvia Kark answered that the corner of the addition would be near the neighbor's swimming pool. Akemann said he would be comfortable with a 10 foot setback, but found an 8' setback difficult to justify. H Anderson asked for input from the audience. There was none. Harvey said he objected to stepping 2 zoning districts-from Rl- 22 to R1-13.5. Freemyer said many lots are not rectangular lots. Akemann felt the hardships demonstrated were the existing structure's site and the topography of the land. Harvey asked about the side yard on the other side of the home. Callander answered that it was 681 , but the bedrooms were located there. Harvey noted that there was a neighborhood drainage area behind the home. Callander felt the hardship was that the neighbor had received a variance which prevented him from buying the land he needed to make this change. 6 Harvey would like to see other alternatives suggested. • H Anderson would like to see some drawings. Harvey advised Callander and Kark to continue the request for the variance and bring in some alternatives. Freemyer asked if the project would not have to weit until spring to begin construction anyway--so there would be time for presentation of alternatives. Callander said it would not start until spring, but there was a long set-up cycle involved. Freemyer said he would like an as-built survey. He felt the couple should continue the variance until then next meeting and bring in alternatives. Possibly no variance would be needed if the right alternative could be found. Callander said it would not be possible without a variance. H Anderson said the Board would like to see drawings on smaller variances. Akemann suggested bringing contours of the property also. Harvey said he has a difficult time with the side yard setback, but would be willing to look at the options. Callander asked that the request be continued until the March 9th meeting. • At the same time he asked if there was any value in the petition that had been signed by all the neighbors. Freemyer said it helps, but those same neighbors will not always live in the homes involved. Bozonie said he did not wish to turn the couple down and would advise them to continue the variance. He had hoped to achieve an 8' setback, but did not realize how difficult this would be. Callander said he would have been satisfied with a 10' setback. He did not realize a redesign would be necessary. - H Anderson said it was not necessarily needed. (The redesign) Variance Request 89-07 was continued to March, 1989 meeting. No Board action taken. E. Request #89-08, submitted boy Dana Larsen and Gedney Tuttle for property located at 7011 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 3� B, to permit a permanent dock 1 '' from the side lot line extended into Bryant Lake. City Code requires the dock to be setback 20' from the side lot line extended into Bryant Lake. Gedney Tuttle appeared to present the variance. He explained that he had lived on Willow Creek Road for 15 years. He was representing Dana Larson. Dana (the son)is conservator and is asking for the variance. . Durham noted that a neighbor (S.E. of property in question)had written a letter requesting a continuation. 7 . Tuttle explained that the variance request is to install a permanent dock. It would be a variance from the 20' setback from extended side site line. Tuttle showed the layout of the area on transparencies on an overhead projector. He noted that the site lines are unlike any other properties in the area. They come together like a pie shape. He mentioned that the neighbors had written letters saying this would be O.K. Harvey asked about the square footage of the dock. Tuttle answered it would be 410 Sq Ft. He noted that as they go farther into the lake, the space runs out, so the variance is needed. Harvey asked about easements. Durham answered that there is a 40' easement on the NW side of lot 6. Harvey asked if Tuttle was a party to that easement. Tuttle said not, but he would be with some others. Harvey asked if the dock was for Mr Larson and if he was being compensated for it. Tuttle answered that yes, he was compensating Mr Larson and that Larson's • family planned to move here. Akeman asked if permits were required on permanent docks. Durham answered that they were, but only from the DNR. The City requires no permits is all City requirements are met. Freemyer had questions regarding the intent of Eden Prairie's lake frontage. Should it be used by the fee owner and guests? Is this selling dock space? Tuttle said the sale and purchase of the easement could be called that. Akemann asked if there were watercraft there. Tuttle said there were. They were trying to clean the area up. Nothing is changing, and all the watercraft are in one place. H Anderson asked why the boats are on shore if there is already a permanent dock. Tuttle said it had been a dry summer and the boats were on the ground.A dock with a "T" configuration would put the boats out in deeper water. Harvey asked aboutthe temporary dock. -Durb-am said they are permitted, provided they meet with city code. • H Anderson asked about a longer straight dock. Tuttle said they were limited to 75' . Akemann asked if it would be in the same location as the dock there now. 8 • Tuttle answered not exactly the same location. Harvey asked if this had been discussed with the DNR. Durham said it had been discussed, but he did not know if it had been approved. Tuttle said the DNR is close to making a decision, but did not want to move until the city moves on it. Harvey had questions on the easement. Durham said it was not a common practice in Eden Prairie, although it was used heavily on Lake Minnetonka. The city did not review or approve private easements and shoreline code did not address that issue. Freemyer quoted from the letter received from Knutdson (neighbor). Durham noted that Knutdson had questions on the legalities--- the easements had been put on the property 8 years ago. Freemyer asked about the other easement holders. Tuttle showed the easement holder's properties on the overhead projector. He said he is ownercf a one eleventh ownership in a specified outlot lake lot. . Akemann asked what is to prevent others from using this dock (your friends, your boss) even though only you have permission? Tuttle said the use will run with the title to the property. Harvey asked how long the easement is for. Durham answered forever. Anderson asked if the easement was to property or people. Tuttle answered that the easement runs with the title to the property. Freemyer asked if the easement was for the use of others -not just the fee owner-would we be condoning it? Should the City Attorney review the matter to determine if we are creating a liability? Durham said we need to consider that. Freemyer suggest-ad the Board could ask the City Attorney to review this. Tuttle said to. continue this is to deny it. It needs to be done in February. Harvey said the city has no control over lake management--we need to get back to code issues. • H Anderson said the on-going use has nothing to do with it--we would be building a dock where there is not a dock. He noted the Knutdson letter. Akemann said the neighbor may be aware that"later"will be "too late." 9 C Durham noted that if the Board approved this variance this evening, Knutdson • could petition the Council to review the request. Freemyer asked Tuttle if he defined the hardship in the letter. Tuttle said he did,in mentioning the configuration of the land and adjoining property. Freemyer said because of the number of boats, such a configuration for a dock was needed. Tuttle felt that Mrs Knutdson should be at this meeting. Anderson said she was out of town. Akemann asked who was paying for the dock. Tuttle said he was paying the full share. Larson would be released from any obligations financially since it was his property. Harvey noted that conditions for granting such variances were listed in the staff report: 1. Should be granted when determined to be in the public interest. 2. Should be granted where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to individual property being considered. Tuttle said he would like to add that this is in the public interest--the sedimentation problem would be greatly decreased. The dock would be farther out, allowing more space for the Knutdsons. Harvey asked if the site for the dock was chosen to allow more room for the Knutdons. Tuttle said the position of the dock was chosen to observe DNR site lines. The dock would be close to an area with a lot of vegetation which could not be used for much else. Harvey said he was not convinced there was a hardship when reviewing the two conditions necessary. — Akemann said he had wondered why nothing had been done in this area before when he as boating in the area.He felt that permanent docks were not always well maintained. It would seem if it is "all or nothing." Freemyer said the normal usage of Larson (owner) would be 1 or 2 boats. He felt there was not hardship here. Tuttle said that with or without the dock, there will be 5 boats in the area, plus sailboats. They are not changing the use of the area, but want to make it more orderly. • Anderson said there was room here to build a dock--maybe not as large as Tuttle would like. He asked what the hardship was that would make Largag elegible for a large dock above and beyond code? 10 Akemann noted lots 9 & 10 where it could be done. He felt the hardship here was the angle of the lots. • H Anderson asked if there had been a variance on this property before. Durham said there had been, but it had been withdrawn. Harvey said this is designated as a regional park for Bryant Lake. If this is granted, there will be more. There are a lot of convergent lot lines. Durham said the variance here was the setback from the lot line. Freemyer said he would like to go on record as stating that if the variance had not been required, the DNB's approval would have been sufficient. He felt at this time he would vote it down--if a continuance was given, possibly more light could be shed on it. Tuttle noted a section in the shoreline ordinance, Subdivision 3, Paragraph D. He read this aloud to the Board. It regarded conflicts with adjoining sites and access to the lake. Harvey said he felt this was intended to resolve conflict on 2 adjacent lots. Freemyer said conditions could be put on variances, such as no more than two parties allowed to use the dock. Tuttle said that wotid make no sense. • Akemann asked if there would be less than 5 boats. Tuttle answered no. Akemann felt it would 'h all or nothing in this situation. H Anderson said a dock could be built next winter. He saw no hardship. Freemyer said now there were 5 parties involved, but more could be added. H Anderson felt it was not the Boards problem how many people Larson allows to use the dock. He was not against 5 boats--it is not our concern. He did express a difficult time with the fact that there were 5 boats justifying a variance. Tuttle said they were trying to make the site better than it is--they will still put the boats in the lake there. Freemyer said he did not like to vote the variance down because of the murk. Akemann asked .J)1rham if the dock could be built without the "T" and then every summer attach the "T"? Durham said this was acceptable if -dock- met code & no complaints came in. The City is not concerned with the tact that the dock is permanent or temporary.- • Freemyer said if the dock were a joint venture, no variance would be needed as all would be involved. Reasons were pointed out by Tuttle and Board members why that would not be possible. 11 Akemann noted that if this were denied, a permanent dock without the "T" • configuration could still be installed--or a permanent "L" configuration. Tuttle said he had discussed dredging with the DNR and was told it would eventually fill back in. Akemann felt the infringement was on Perkins lot line and not Knutdsons. H Anderson asked the Board members how they felt about the hardship issue. Harvey: not enough of a hardship Akemann: there is a hardship based on site lines and need to keep 5 boats. Freemyer: no hardship, a dock could be built. Bozonie: no hardship Anderson asked Akemann why 5 boats were required. Akemann answered that is what the owners were asking for. H Anderson said a dock could be built at which boats could be moored. Tuttle asked in the instance someone wanted to put in a dock that would conform in every way except the side lot line--isn't that a hardship? H Anderson felt this would not be approved if it were a house. Tuttle said this was a lake--it was different. • Freemyer felt that there was a way in which this property could be used even if the variance was not granted. H Anderson felt there was no hardship here--a dock muld be built within the code. Tuttle asked what would make a hardship. Anderson said that was difficult to determine. Is a dock a necessary item? Tuttle asked if there were no instance where a hardship could exist? Freemyer said if restrictions were such as to prevent any dock from being built, he could vote for a variance. Here, a usable dock could be built. If the proposal were changed, he could look at it again. It would be better to ask for a continuance. Akemann felt he did not want to run the risk of Knutdson appealing to the Council and this was eliminated by continuing the matter. Tuttle requested a continuance to the March meeting. F. To review and consider building moving request #89-09-M submitted Bob's Lawn and Landscaping to be moved to 15750 Pioneer Trail , Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The type of building to be moved is a single stall 14' x 20' • detached garage._ '— — — I 12 No one was present to present the variance. (Postponed to later in the meeting) • G. Request #89-10, submitted �y Water Products Company for property located at 15801 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, B, T1 To ermit a front yard building setback from Highway #5 at 25' . City Code requires 75' . 2) ,To permit a front yard building setback from the proposed cul-de-sac of 62' . City Code requires 751 . Subdivision 3, H, (3 7To permit a front yard parking setback of 0' from the north lot line. City Code requires a 75' front yard parking setback. 4 To permit a front yard parking setback of 15' from the proposed cul-de-sac. City Code requires a 37.5' front yard parking setback. 5 To permit a 0' side yard setback from the west lot line. City Code requires a 10' side yard setback. Subdivision 3, J, 6) To ermit outside storage within one-half of the required front yard setback adjacent to t proposed cul-de-sac and north lot line. Bob Morgan was present to present the variance. He explained that he was with Water Products Company and that the company had been affected by the 2nd phase of the reconstruction of Hwy 5. It had closed off their entrance to Hwy 5 and a road was being constructed up Fuller Road culminating in a cul de sac. The project was supposed to have bid last spring, but was just bid last month. Space will be taken between the two buildings and half of parking space will be lost. They are already overcrowded in the parking aspect. He had contacted consultants and Morgan noted the alternatives presented by Durham. Mr Sedlack, the neighboring property owner, had helped with the storage problem, but this area is no longer available. This succession of events brings Water Products Co. to the limits of the property lines. The variance will be needed on side and front yard set backs. Freemyer asked if the company had perhaps outgrown the site. Morgan said he hoped they had not--it would be costly to move. Anderson reviewed the variances that were being asked for: 1. To permit a front yard building setback from Highway #5 at 25' . The City Code requires a front yard setback of 751 . Currently the building is' setback 50' from the front lot line. The new Right-of- Way will still be utilized as green space and not road bed. The Board members response to this item was that the building is there, the road is being built and,a variance would be needed. All agreed. 2' To permit a front yard building setback from the proposed cul-de-sac of 621 . The City Code requires a front yard setback of 751 . Currently there is no front yard on the western portion of the lot. Access to the site is currently from Highway #5. - The new access will be from a cul-de-sac off of Fuller Road. The new cul-de-sac creates a front yard and the need for a variance. • The Board members response to this item was that considering the front yard ' set back and proposed cul de sac, a variance would be needed. 13 3.• To permit a front yard parking setback of 0' from the new north lot line. Currently parking is to the south of the existing building. The current access is located where the new proposed parking area is located. The new cul-de-sac and rearrangement of outside stroage area has necessitated movement of the parking to the western side of the building. The proposed new front yard setback is 0' from the north lot line_ The Board members response to this item was that since there were no residential neighbors, just highway area, to the north--the 0' setback from new north lot line was acceptable. - Harvey asked about outside storage. Morgan said there would be no outside storage in that area. Durham mentioned that the drawing in the packet was only an alternative. Harvey asked about elevation from Hwy 5 and screening plans. Morgan said they were elevated from Hwy 5 so much that screening would not be necessary in his estimation.There would be no need for it. 4• To permit a front yard parking setback of 15' from the proposed cul- de-sac, the new and exisitng parking will be located 15' from the new propsed cul-de-sac. City Code requires a 37.5' front yard • setback. Board members response to this item was that a front yard setback of 15' could be permitted. All agreed. 5` To permit a 0' side yard setback from the west lot line. City Code requires a 10' side yard setback. Ray Sedlack, owner of neighboring property, came forward. He explained his concerns and said he wanted to see consistency. Anderson asked if the proposed lot was to code. Durham said it should be,if the designer did it. He mentioned that angled parking did not require as much space. 47 Stalls would be. required for Water Products Co. Morgan said that is what they are trying to accompolish. Freemyer asked about large trucks in the area. Morgan said that was more difficult with cars in the area where the trucks travel--ttat is why they would like all the cars in one area. . Harvey asked if they had considered moving parking spaces as options. H Anderson noted that there was adequate land, although there was much stored there. 14 Harvey asked what a specific location was being used for at present. Morgan answered it was for storage of junk. Freemyer said he would like to see more green area--can that be accompolished? Morgan said it would not work. The alternative presented by Durham would break the consolidation of parking and make truck traffic difficult too. Akemann asked if the trucks would turn around in the cul de sac and back up. Morgan answered no and explained how the trucks would come into the area. He added that the State had made a problem for the company. They were compensated, but would rather not have done it. Harvey noted that 0' lot line parking variances do not allow for green space. They are generally not granted. 6. To permit outside storage within 112 of the required front yard setback adjacent to the proposed cul-de-sac and north lot line. The variance is initiated by the new proposed cul-de-sac and taking of property on the north side of the lot. The proposed plan does not indicate any screening of this area where outside storage is to occur. Should the Board approve the variance it may require screening according, to code. . Durham explained this item to the Board. Bozonie had a question on the front yard setback. Durham answered that this property has two front yard setbacks. Freemyer asked about screening. Morgan answered that no residential viewing of the property would be involved. He did not believe screening should be necessary in this instance. Freemyer said he agreed with that point of view--it was industrial in that area. Morgan noted that they had already spent $20,000 for screening and fencing near the rail road tracks. Anderson noted that the problem areas were items 2 '& 5. He felt it was hard to grant a variance when all this land was on the property. Morgan said it appears the company has a lot of land, but the state took part of it and with storage needs, there was not mach left for parking. He felt pod parking was not wise when moving pallets.- Anderson asked if Morgan did not have input to all curb cuts on the land. • Morgan answered yes, to some extent. Morgan said that things are not settled yet. The state will be working with the company. 15 Freemyer noted that regarding item 5, green space would be there, although it would be on the neighboring property. Can Morgan purchase property from the neighbor? Sedlack said he had been at these meetings twice already and hired a consultant. If Morgan bought 5' , all the utilities would be under it. Durham noted that no more green space would be created by this move. Freemyer said he could vote for all the items, including 5 (although there were problems with it) because of it being a unique situation . He did not feel it was good to have the parking scattered all around. Harvey asked for a definition of "scattered all around". Freemyer answered that Harvey was right--there are options. H Anderson said there were all kinds of alternatives for parking-it is just covered with pipes. Anderson said he could go with a 0' lot line to Hwy 5. Where would the snow be put? The code says 10' and he feels that we need to stand by it.(Side lot lin, Bozonie noted that the proposed fence was no longer beingproposed and thus opened up space for 18 sites there. • Morgan said he would like convenient parking for employees and visitors. Durham noted the difference in his plan and Morgans plan is 2 spaces. DL:rham plan: 52 stalls Morgan plan: 54 spaces Morgan said he would like to consolidate parking because of plowing, etc. Harvey said he was tiring of hearing about"disjointed"and 'scattered all around" parking---it is all adjacent. Morgan said they were doing things in their best interest. H Anderson said he would have done the same things--but this is a large area and he cannot see it. The neighbor is entitled to the same green space as others. Freemyer asked if the cul de sac was "set in concrete?" Morgan answered yes, the position was "set in concrete." The following Board members were opposed to item # 5: 1. Bozonie 2. Harvey 3. Freemyer 4. Akemann • 5. Anderson _Anderson asked if item 5 could be tabled. Durham said everything except item 5 could be approved by the Board. I 16 MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve items 1,2,3,4,and 6 on variance request 89-10. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. All approved the denial of item 5 on variance request 897.10. F. (This variance was brought up again at the end of the meeting as no one was present to speak on the matter before in the meeting) to review and consider building moving request #89-09-M submitted by Bob's Lawn and Landscaping to be moved to 15750 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described as: That Part of the east 300 feet of the west 963. feet of the northwest uarter of the southwest uarter, 1 J91 nort�herlx of County Road Number. The—type—of building to be moved is a single stall I4'x 20' detached ara e. No one was present yet to speak on this variance. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board continue variance 89•-09M to the next meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS --Letter to Council Discussion took place on the letter to be sent from the Board to the City Council. It was suggested that the letter be sent and signed by the Board • as a whole, rather than the individual names. MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board send the letter as presented, with the exception that the names be deleted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS REVIEWAL OF DNR SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Durham mentioned that the the Planning Commission and Park, Recreation and and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the regulations and had referred it to this Board for approval. Anderson asked it it had anything to do with docks. Possibly it could be discussed at the joint meeting. Durham said it did not deal with docks, but he could look into the discussion at. the joint meeting. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board accept the regulations and recommend it be presented to the City Council for approval. Freemyer seconded the motion and.it passed unanimously. Harvey asked about Anderson Lake. Durham answered that it would remain a natural enviroment. VI.ADJOURN MWT MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 10:45 P.M.