Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br /> <br />Planning File 953 - Chandler-Wilbert Vault Company request for variance to sideyard <br />setback at 2280 North Hamline and variance to use a roadway at <br />2270 North Hamline for industrial purposes. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />~1r. l~ayne Dordell, Attorney representing the applicant, indicated that they are seeking <br />variances which would reduce the required setback for parking on the present Chandler <br />property from 40 feet to zero feet and a variance reducing the required building setback <br />on the present Chandler property from 60 feet to zero feet. A variance is also being <br />requested to permit a driveway on the R-1 property at 2270 North Ham1ine Avenue to <br />serve the rear of the I-l property at 2280 North Hamline, r1r. Dordell commented that <br />the R-1 property would not be used for storage. He stated that there would be some <br />open storage on the I-1 zoned property to the east of the proposed building. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />~~. Dennis Drikert, 2241 Dellwood, stated that he thought the discussion at the last <br />meeting regarding Mr. Beisang's proposal for the variances, included the provision <br />that the house and the existing driveway would be retained. <br /> <br />Mr. Dardell indicated that it would be better to have the proposed driveway, which <br />will serve the industrial property, located on the north half of the R-l property. <br />It would be less visab1e to the adjacent neighbors because of the change in grade on <br />the south half of the R-l property. Hr. Drikert also conmented that he was concerned <br />that the retaining wall on the east prperty line would be low enough so that children <br />could climb up on it and walk along the top of it and that at the north end, the <br />height becomes approximately 8 feet. ffu felt that there was a safety factor which <br />should be considered. <br /> <br />Hr, Richard l\Tillis, resident on Dellwood AVenue, indicated that he was in agreement <br />with this proposal but was concerned that the Vault Company would return in three or <br />four years with another application to expand the factory. He commented that it was <br />his hope that they would not pursue any further expansion. <br /> <br />~1r, Fuith, executive vice president of Chand1er-l~ilbert, indicated that the vault busi- <br />ness had declined in thp last twenty years and he saw no further expaJ1sion for the <br />vault companybeyond what is proposed. ~1r. Rukavina congratulated the Chandler-Wilbert <br />Vault Company and the residents in the neighborhood for their willingness to work out <br />a compromise regarding the Vault Company expansion. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Hr, Kp.l1et moved and Mr, Rukavina seconded that the Commission recommend approval of <br />Chandler-Wilbert Vault Company's request for variance reducing the required'setback <br />for parking from 40 feet to zero feet and reducing the required building setback from <br />60 feet to zero feet at 2280 North Hamline and a variance permitting a driveway on <br />the R-l property at 2270 North Hamline to serve the I-I property at 2280 North Hamline <br />with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1) That the contiguous single family lot at 2270 North Hamline, being 75 feet in <br />width, be purchased and maintained as an integral part of the property located <br />at 2280 North Ham1ine. <br />2) That a driveway to serve as a connecting link from the front of the R-1 lot to <br />the storage area in the rear of the I-I lot be allowed to a maximum width of <br />24 feet, <br />3) 'That said driveway be located on the north half of the R-1 property. <br />