Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />PLANNING REPORT <br />• <br />DATE: 11 July 1984 <br />CASE NUMBER: 1515-84 <br />APPLICANT:' Willmus Companies <br />LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Centennial Drive <br />and Hamline Avenue <br />ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Variance to Front Yard <br />Setback <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />1. You will recall the approval last year for the division of a lot and the <br />construction of an office building by the applicant at the southwest <br />corner of Centennial Drive and Hamline Avenue. Ten feet of additional <br />right-of-way were required to be dedicated as a part of that development <br />proposal. When the surveying was done to lay the foundations for the <br />building, the required 30 foot setback to the building (from the public <br />right-of-way) was inadvertentthe building y measured from <br />now the <br />substant�allyf-way line <br />completed <br />rather than the new. Thus, 8 <br />with a 20 foot setback instead of the required 30 feet. <br />2. The original design included an entrance to the structure to the second <br />level on this side of the building <br />which(facing <br />orientedHamline <br />to the Avenue). <br />driveway onsthe <br />featured a ramp and stair system <br />south side of the building from Hamline Avenue. <br />3. The applicant now proposes to redesign the front entrance and reorient <br />these stairs and the ramp toward Hamline Avenue rather than south to the <br />driveway. This necessitates a portion of the stairway being on the public <br />right-of-way and moving the sidewalk out to the old right-of-way line. <br />We are particularly concerned about orienting the stairs toward Hamline <br />Avenue rather than the driveway as was previously done. We feel that this <br />orientation, as now proposed, would induce people to park their car on <br />Hamline Avenue to enter the building on this side of the structure. <br />4. The applicant and his architect sug g�st that o move the <br />the grade <br />sidewalktfurther into <br />ons on this <br />side of the building make it necessary <br />the right-of-way as shown on the attached drawings. We question whether <br />this is really necessary. <br />5. The grading problems on this side of the building are f ally <br />coucaused <br />provid the <br />necessity of constructing the ramp. The ramp, <br />handicap access to the second floor are required by law, which ordinarily <br />would have been provided by an elevator. When this error was first <br />uggested to the applicant that perhaps putting an elevator <br />discovered, we sf that were <br />in the building would be the best <br />onlT1e� this <br />eliminated. <br />entrance at the second level couldst infact, havebeen <br />