Loading...
10-26-99 BZA Minutes . . . 1695 ~ Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 26, 1999 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, October 26, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Swedberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were: Members Lang, McCracken-Hunt, and Swedberg; Planning Commission Representative Shaffer; absent was Polachek. Also present was Staff Liaison Mary Dold. I. Approval of Minutes - September 28, 1999 MOVED by Lang, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 28, 1999 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions: 3218 Lee Avenue North (Map 3) 99-10-31 Grant Lindaren Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. · 2.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 32.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the front property line. Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. · .4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.6 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the side (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming addition onto the rear of the house. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances and commented that the requests are for existing situations and that the proposed addition would be conforming. It was noted that Mr. Lindgren was present to answer any questions. MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variances as noted above. 9220 Olson Memorial Highway (Map 22) 99-10-30 The Luther Company Limited Partnership Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 5 Restricted Uses. · To allow outdoor storage of a trash enclosure on the property. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 2 1696 Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. . · 23.30 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.70 feet for existing structure at its closest point to the south property line; and · 28.40 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 6.6 feet for a proposed addition on the east side of the existing building at its closest point to the south property line; and · 25 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10 feet for a proposed trash enclosure at its closest point to the south property line; and · 31.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 3.5 feet for the lack of landscaping, due to a proposed parking lot at its closest point to the south property line; and · 17 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 18 feet for the lack of land- scaping, due to a proposed parking lot at its closest point to the north property line. Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7(8)(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. · 18.62 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 1.38 feet for the existing building at its closest point to the west property line. Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7(8)(4) Landscaping. · 8.62 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 1.38 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west side of the existing building. e Purpose: To allow for the construction of a nonconforming addition onto the existing building that would be used, along with the existing building, as a collision center for repair and painting of vehicles. Chair Swedberg asked if the applicant was part of the Luther automobile company. Jon Baker, Baker Associates, Inc., Architects responded that it is. Swedberg asked Staff Liaison Dold to review the requested variances. Dold explained to the Board that this item did go before the Planning Commission on October 11, 1999 and due to that discussion the applicant provided to the Board a revised site plan. She told the Board that the Planning Commission was concerned with the lack of landscaping along the north and south property lines and questioned the need for the tandem parking as found in the north parking lot abutting Golden Valley Road. Dold turned the table over to Robert Shaffer, Planning Commission Representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals, who highlighted the Planning Commission Meeting of October 11 to the Board. Shaffer told the Board that the Planning Commission based a recommendation for denial on the following findings: 1. The request incorporates too much development for the site's size, as evidenced by the requested variances; 2. A collision repair center is a different and more industrial scale of use than the gas stations, battery and tire services, and other routine auto maintenance facilities found in the Commercial zoning district, with characteristics such as multiple rooftop e Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 3 1697 . venting stacks and outdoor storage of vehicles under repair for an average of 9.6 days at a time; and 3. The proposed site is a particularly visible commercial property, given its frontage on and proximity to both Highway 55 and Golden Valley Road, which in combination with existing and proposed variances leaves no appropriate "back yard" area where the more industrial aspects of the use might be adequately concealed from view. It was noted that the site plan presented to the Planning Commission had been significantly changed before being presented to the BZA. Dold described the changes. The requests for the trash enclosure (bullets 1 and 4) saying these variances are no longer required because the trash enclosure had been moved inside the building. The request for a front yard setback variance (bullet 6) was no longer needed because the new site plan shows the most northern row of tandem parking was deleted. The revised site plan showed the required 35 feet of greenspace along Golden Valley Road (6th Avenue North). Dold read the remaining variance requests. e Jon Baker, Architect representing Luther Companies, reviewed a new site plan noting the 35 foot greenspace along Golden Valley Road and that the trash enclosure had been moved to inside the building. He explained that Luther Companies wanted to utilize the existing building and continue the same building line along the south property line. Baker noted that the existing bituminous crosses over the east property line and out to the curb along Golden Valley Road. He also noted that the site plan shows that one of the existing driveways on the north end would be eliminated. Baker commented that the location of the proposed building addition provided more room to work with on the site. He added that although the proposed building and parking lot do come closer to the south property line than the existing structure, there is significant green space (right-of-way) along Olson Memorial Highway abutting this property. Baker next explained the exterior finishes of the building noting the glass windows and metal canopy. He added that there are no doors planned for the south side of the existing building or proposed building. Timothy O'Dougherty, Luther Companies representative, told the Board that the landscaping around the site has been intensified quite substantially, including green space along Golden Valley Road. Member Shaffer commented about whether there was enough parking now that changes have been made to this site plan. Mr. O'Dougherty responded that initially they are planning for forty vehicles a week to be repaired with an eventual goal of sixty vehicles a week. Shaffer commented that he is concerned about too many cars on site and where would they all go. Member McCracken-Hunt asked if it were possible to pull the parking lot abutting Olson Memorial Highway more toward the north. Baker believed that one parking space could be eliminated in this area and additional landscaping could be added. e Member Lang asked about pulling the proposed building toward the north creating a larger setback along Olson Memorial Highway. Baker commented that this could be problematic. Baker explained the use within the building and how the vehicles proceed from one end of the building to the other. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 4 1698 McCracken-Hunt commented that now would be the time to fix this piece of property up and noted the improvement on the north end with the elimination of one row of tandem parking. She said she believes the only remaining concern for the Board to look at is the southeast corner of the site. She asked if the proposed expansion were pulled back could additional landscaping be provided. O'Dougherty commented that in order to provide additional landscaping, without moving the proposed building, would be to eliminate three parking spaces in the southeast corner. . Lang suggested that the proposed building be stepped back in order to maintain the same setback as the existing building of 11.7 feet from the south property line. Shaffer added that the applicant is gaining square footage with the proposed addition on an already nonconforming site. Baker commented that stepping the building back may present an odd-shaped building, if angled. Shaffer said he was concerned with the proposed parking areas in the southeast corner taking into consideration that the existing property is already too far into setbacks and questions whether this proposal is making something worse than now exists. Shaffer and McCracken-Hunt both suggested that the proposed addition be moved toward the north. McCracken-Hunt inquired whether this would affect the car wash bay that is located closest to the south property line in the proposed addition. Baker said the bay is approximately 10 feet in width. McCracken-Hunt commented that the Board was really looking at not making a nonconforming property look worse. e Shaffer commented that at this point the proposal is better than that seen by the Planning Commission. But is still too much on the site, the use is still inappropriate for the site, and the outdoor storage of damaged vehicles, even with berming, would be clearly visible to the residents living in the apartments to the north. He said it would look like what it is, too much building on too small a site. Swedberg said that with the changes of moving the building toward the north he could vote for the proposal. Lang agreed. McCracken-Hunt reviewed the proposed landscaping and said that a landscape plan should be taken seriously to compensate for lack of greenspace along the south property line. McCracken-Hunt reviewed the discussion to this point noting that no variance is required for the front setback. She suggested that there be berms of 5 feet or something that would visually screen the site at the north property line. Dold commented that the City's Environmental Technician could review the landscape plan and whether a 5-foot berm is feasible along the north property line. She said that the Environmental Technician could also address the types of plantings that would be most effective on a berm. McCracken-Hunt addressed the south side of the property noting that if the applicant moved the proposed addition back 10 feet the setback of 11.7 feet could be maintained along the south property line for the proposed addition and parking lot as well. e Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 5 1699 e Swedberg said he would approve the variances for the existing situations. He agrees with McCracken-Hunt and Shaffer that the proposed building should have the same setback as the existing structure and said that great attention should be given to the landscaping at the southeast corner as possible. MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Lang to approve the requested variances for the existing conditions as follows: · 23.30 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.70 feet for the existing structure at its closest point to the south property line; and · 18.62 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 1.38 feet for the existing structure at its closest point tot he west property line; and · 8.62 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 1.38 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west side of the existing building. McCracken-Hunt included in her motion to approve the following variances regarding the proposed addition and parking: · 23.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.7 feet for the proposed addition at its closest point to the south property line; and · 23.3 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11.7 feet for the proposed parking lot at its closest point to the south property line. e McCracken-Hunt also recommended visual screening that includes landscaping as approved by City staff. Shaffer suggested that the proposed berming be approximately 5 feet in height. The Board further discussed whether fencing is needed and did not come to a conclusion. Before the approval was made, Chair Swedberg asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board concerning this proposal. John Liss, 235 Nevada Avenue North and owner of the National Camera Exchange, approached the Board. Mr. Liss commented that he could not attend the Planning Commission meeting but did watch a rebroadcast of the meeting. He said he was concerned about the proposed stacks on the building and how they are vented out. He questioned the look of the proposed fencing that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and did not want the fencing to look like another "Menard's" along Laurel Avenue. He told the Board that he does not believe the cars can be stacked like normal vehicles because they will be damaged and will need more space for parking. Dold explained to Mr. Liss that he would have an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing that the City Council will conduct in November. She told him that he would receive a hearing notice when the Council would consider Luther Companies request for a Conditional Use Permit. No other persons from the public spoke. e Shaffer commented that some berming and fencing is necessary for this site and suggested the Board discuss this issue. McCracken-Hunt said the visual issue should be addressed noting the probability there would be damaged cars on site. Shaffer addressed the west side of the property where the abutting property, National Camera, could see into the site. He said that there is no room for berming and may be impossible to shield with evergreens. Shaffer Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 6 1700 commented that the landscaping is not just protecting National Camera, but one must take into e consideration that the proposed site is not attractive and does need the greatest care in landscaping along the north end of the property. McCracken-Hunt said she would like to see a visual barrier along the north end of the property, but was uncertain about the amount of landscaping needed. Chair Swedberg called the vote. By a vote of 3 to 1 (one member absent), the Board approved the requested variances as noted above. The Board strongly recommends that visual screening along the entire north end, and to the west side, be created that includes berming and additional landscaping be added to the southeast corner of the property. 5126 Minnaqua Drive (Map 5) 99-10-32 John and Stephanie Condon Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback. · 3.01 feet off the required 14.25 feet to a distance of 11.24 feet for a proposed screened-in porch into the side (east) setback. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a nonconforming screened-in porch located where an existing upper level deck now exists at the northeast corner of the house. Chair Swedberg noted the requested variance. John Condon was in attendance. Staff Liaison Dold informed the Board that the Condon's had appeared before them in June of this year to e request side yard setback variances for the existing house, and that the Board had granted these variances. She commented that the request by the Condon's was to add a screened-in porch to the now existing upper level deck and that the materials submitted included a photo of the rear of the house and a picture of the proposed porch. Swedberg noted that the materials submitted defined very well what the applicants were proposing to construct. Staff Liaison Dold also told the Board that the neighbor, located at 1520 Minnaqua Drive, that would be most affected by the proposal, sent a letter of support. (This letter was given to each Board member for reading.) Shaffer commented that the screened-in porch would have minimal impact on the neighborhood. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance as noted above. 510 Ellis Lane (Map 17) 99-10-33 Spencer and Pamela Grover Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures. . To allow for the construction of a proposed two-stall garage in front of the main structure and 7.5 feet from the front property line. e . e . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 7 17Q1 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed two-stall garage located in the front yard and 7.5 feet from the front property line. Chair Swedberg read the requested variance. Spencer Grover was in attendance. Staff Liaison Dold told the Board that the Grover's would like to construct a two-stall garage in the front yard. After reviewing the site, per the survey and a visit, staff believes that it would be difficult to place a driveway along the east side of the lot and place and detached garage to the south of the property. She noted the rear of the lot faces Olson Memorial Highway. Shaffer also commented that the rear of the house could be considered a front on Olson Memorial Highway. Dold also reviewed several exhibits found in the agenda packet. Exhibit "A" was a computer drawing by the applicant showing the existing situations and the proposed garage. Exhibit "B" was a computer rendering by the applicant showing existing situations, substituting the front property line with the curb line. Exhibit "C" is a City drawing showing the placement of the cul- de-sac when it was reconstructed in 1987. Dold noted that the cul-de-sac was placed slightly more to the west, leaving a larger right-of-way along the frontage of the applicant's property. Staff calculated this right-of-way area to be approximately 22 feet in width. Dold also point out that the applicant is proposing to place the proposed garage only 7.5 feet from the front property line. Shaffer asked about the materials (snowmobile, woodpile, etc) in the yard and if they would be placed in the new garage. Mr. Grover commented that some of the materials would be taken up north where his father has constructed a new garage and some of the materials would be put in the proposed garage. Shaffer commented that the placement of the garage in the front yard is logical due to the property abutting Olson Memorial Highway to the south and how the house is situation on the cul-de-sac. He believed if the proposed garage were pushed back farther it would become a concern for the neighbor to the northeast whose back yard abuts the applicant's yard exactly where the garage is proposed to be placed. Shaffer said that without drawings he is concerned about the height of the roof and suggested that it be a hip roof and would not be in favor of a high roofline. Grover said a hip roof would be acceptable and is planning to match the color of the garage and the house. McCracken-Hunt and Shaffer agreed that this was a unique situation. Lang commented that if the road were again reconstructed closer to the east, this would put the placement of the proposed garage closer to the street. Dold commented that this could be a possibility. Lang asked if any of the neighbors had commented on the proposal. The applicant said that he had talked with the neighbors about the proposal but no one had written any comments on the application form. The Board agreed that they were comfortable with the request due to the layout of the property and where the existing house was placed. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested variance as noted above. Shaffer again requested that the applicant use a low roofline, such as a hip roof, for the proposed garage. 216 Winnetka Avenue South (Map 23) 99-10-34 Krisann and William Ehrman Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 8 1702 · 3 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 12 feet for a proposed two-stall garage at its closest point to the side (south) property line. (Revised) . Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed two-stall garage into the side yard setback. Chair Swedberg reviewed the requested variance. Krisann Ehrman was in attendance. Staff liaison Dold reviewed the request commenting that only one variance is being requested for a proposed two-stall garage. The proposed garage would be placed to the front of the existing garage and the existing garage would be remodel for interior living space. Ms. Ehrman showed the Board minor architect renderings of the proposed garage. She said it is now her intention to add two feet to the front of the garage. Dold responded that this should not have any effect of the proposal as there is approximately 72 feet from the proposed garage to the front setback line. Shaffer noted from the plan that the architect showed the width of the proposed garage from the house side to the south property line has 11 feet vs. the 10 feet shown on the plan. The Board noted this one-foot change. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McCracken-Hunt and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) for four (4) feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for a proposed two-stall garage at its closest point to the side (south) property line. 145 Jersey Avenue North (Map 18) 99-10-35 Church of the Good Shepherd e Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 7(A) Parking Requirements. /e Variance from that section of code requiring parking spaces for school seating. (All students are elementary and do not drive.) Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 7(8) Yard Requirements. ~ 48.5 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 1.5 feet for an existing single- stall garage located along the east property line; and ~.. 5 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 20 feet for a driveway turnaround located in the required landscape area on the south end of the property; and .......... 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for an existing sand playground area and driveway located in the required landscape area on the east side of the property. Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yards. ~ 35 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the existing parking lot directly abutting the front setback along Jersey Avenue; and "--e. 24 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the existing parking lot encroaching into the front setback by 4 feet along Western Avenue; and for a e Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 9 1703 . permanent easement to the City of Golden Valley for 20 feet, along Western Avenue, for future road purposes including drainage and utilities. Waiver from Section 11.70 Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements, Subd. 7(C) Design Standards. V To allow the applicant to forego the required curb and gutter until a time when the parking area is redone. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a small conforming addition onto the east side of the existing building to be used for storage; and for the construction of a larger conforming addition onto the northwest side of the building to be used as a gathering/social hall. e Chair Swedberg presented the variance items. He asked if there was a representative for the Church in attendance. Tim Keefe, 145 Jersey Ave. So. and Trustee/Parishioner for the Church of the Good Shepherd, was in attendance. Also available to make comments or answer questions was Patrick McGuire, from the firm of McGuire Courteau Lucke Architects, Inc. Staff Liaison Dold reviewed each of the variance items. The first variance, Dold commented, is from Section 11.46, Subd. 7(A) Parking Requirements. She told the Board that the parking for schools is based on seating. Because the school is made up of elementary students that do not drive, staff believed that a variance should be granted for the required parking. Dold said she had discussed this variance with other Planning staff who agreed that a variance should be granted from the language as found under the 1-1 Institutional Sub-District, "one (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) units of seating capacity in churches and schools". Swedberg commented that parking variances in the past have always been from the number of parking spaces required. Dold said that after discussing the issue with Planning staff it was decided to request the variance from the language because elementary students do riot drive. Dold next reviewed the variance for the existing three-stall garage located on the east side of the property in a drainage and utility easement (Section 11.45, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements). Dold commented that the building setback in the Institutional zoning district is 50 feet on sides and rears. This existing structure is located 1.5 feet from the property line. She said that the City Engineering Department was consulted because the structure sits in a drainage and utility easement. Engineering staff requested that the applicant apply for a permit that would allow the garage to remain in such easement until a time when the City would need to utilize the easement. Dold added that applying for the permit should be made a condition of approval for this particular variance. The next variance reviewed was for an existing driveway turnaround located at the south end of the property. A variance is required from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 that requires 25 feet adjacent to the property line be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. The applicant is requesting a 5-foot variance to allow the turnaround to remain. The Board commented favorably on this variance because of its existing situation. . Dold said the last variance required from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 is for existing situations along the east side of the property. She noted that the existing sand playground, at its closest point to Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 10 1704 the south property line on the east side of the school is only five (5) feet from the property line . thereby requiring a 20-foot variance. She also commented that the existing bituminous driveway, leading to the three-stall garage is also only 5 feet from the east property line, thereby requiring a 20-foot variance due to the lack of greenspace. The Board said because these are existing situations they would approve the requested variances. Dold said the applicants are requesting front setback variances along Jersey Avenue and Western Avenue. She noted that Section 11.46, Subd. 9 states that "No building or structure in an Institutional ZoninQDistrict shall be located less than 35 feet from the property line abutting a public street. All portions of~ parcel of land abutting a public streetshall be regarded as front yards. All front yards shall be planted, and landscaped, and shall contain no off-street parking". The Board first reviewed the requested variance along Jersey Avenue South. Dold commented that the request is for 35 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of zero (0) feet for the existing parking spaces. The survey revealed that the parking spaces are also located in the right-of-way. Planning staff talked with the City's Engineer concerning these spaces and was told that the applicant would need to apply for a right-of-way permit to allow the parking spaces in the right-of-way. Tim Keefe talked about the lack of green space in this area and questioned where the sidewalk fit in on this property. Lang commented that the survey, which was recently completed at the Church's request, should have shown the existing sidewalk and suggested that the Church bring this to the attention of the surveyor. McCracken-Hunt questioned the need to have the parking spaces in the right-of-way and whether it was possible to create more greenspace along Jersey by removing additional spaces out of the front yard setback area. She suggested that ten feet of additional greenspace be created which means that there would be a loss of approximately 12 parking stalls. Patrick McQuire commented that there would need to be some bituminous work done in this area as a result of the building construction. McCracken-Hunt added that this is an opportunity to take care of some nonconforming issues. e Shaffer asked for clarification on how parking was calculated concerning the new additions. Dold responded that parking is calculated per seating capacity and not square footage of building as in other districts. Tim Keefe. and Patrick McGuire said the smaller addition is for storage and the larger addition is considered a social hall/gathering place - a place where parishioners could go after church service or a funeral to gather. Shaffer questioned whether this space wOLild be used or divided into classrooms, which would increase the parking needed on site. Keefe told the Board that this area would not be used for classrooms. The Board agreed that the applicant provide 10 feet of greenspace along Jersey Avenue. Dold next reviewed the variance required along Western Avenue. She noted that the existing parking lot encroaches into the front setback by 4 feet. She added that the City is requesting from the Church of the Good Shepherd a permanent easement along Western Avenue of an additional 10 feet. The City at this time has a drainage and utility easement along Western of 10 feet as found on the plat. The 20 feet would be used for future road purposes including a drainage and utility easement. Dold added that City Code states that "When either the City, Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota creates or worsens a nonconforming setback or prevents or worsens compliance with the applicable parking requirements by acquiring a portion of a lot for public improvement, the lot owner shall be entitled as a matter of right to obtain a e Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 11 1705 . variance of the nonconforming setback or parking condition so created or worsened. Because the City is making a nonconformity worse, a variance should be granted at this time for 20 feet. She said taking into consideration the 20 foot easement and 4 feet that currently encroaches into the setback a variance should be granted for 24 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11 feet along Western Avenue. The last item that was reviewed by the Board was for the lack of curb and gutter on the site. Dold commented that the applicant has no plans to redo the existing parking lot at this time; and therefore, would like to have this requirement delayed until a time when the parking lot needs to be redone. Dold commented that this variance is more difficult to keep track of. She added when someone does major work to their parking area, a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control permit needs to be applied for which should bring to the attention of staff to review the curb and gutter issue. Mr. McGuire affirmed that the parking lot would not be worked on at this time. He said that the only area to be disturbed would be on the northwest side and the entrance into the site off of Jersey. MOVED by McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as follows: · Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 7(A) Parking Requirements (language from required parking based on seating - this is an elementary school) · Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements for the following: e 48.5 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 1.5 feet for an existing three-stall garage located along the east property line; and 5 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 20 feet for a driveway turnaround located in the required landscape area on the south end of the property; and 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the existing playground area, located in a greenspace area, along the south property line east of the school; and 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the existing driveway, located in a greenspace area, leading to the three-stall garage on the east side. · Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yards. 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet for the existing parking lot encroaching into the front setback along Jersey Avenue; and 24 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the existing parking lot and permanent easement to the City of Golden Valley along Western Avenue. · Waiver from Section 11.70 Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements, Subd. 7(C) Design Standards - to allow the applicant to forego the required curb and gutter until a time when the parking area is redone. . The variance for the three-stall garage to remain in the existing drainage and utility easement is conditioned on the applicant applying and receiving a right-of-way permit. A right~of-way permit will also need to be applied for to do work in the right~of-way along Jersey Avenue - this is not a condition for approval of the variance along Jersey Avenue. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 26, 1999 Page 12 1706 IV. Other Business . There was no other business. V. Adjournment Chair Swedberg adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. ~ ~~ Mahlon wedberg, Chair . Mary .0 d, Staff Liaison e -