pf_00541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

0 0 � C� � . (This case was tabled at the applicant's request at the Oct�ber lst Meeting. Fol lo�.��ing is a copy of the report prepared for that hearing. ) December 3, 1969 CAS E NO: APPLICANT: LOCATION ACTION REQUESTED 541-69 Bristol Company, Inc. Cleveland Avenue South of Wilder Street (See Sketch) Rezoning from "R-1" to "R-3A" and Special Use �'ermit for Developmrnt Plan PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in questior� was considered for rezoning and development appraval approximately a year a�o, at which time it was denied princ;pally because inadequate space had been left b�tween the existing single family development to the north and proposed apartment units. '�'ou will recall perhaps,at fihe time of the previou5 proposal an open space had been (eft for the extension of the cul-de-sac to terminate Wiider Street, but that development had been proposed immediately south af Lot E(the nearest single family lot fronting on Cleveland Avenue}, 2. The applicant now proposes to leave a continuous apen strip 170 feet in width across the northerly third of Phe property, You will recall that under the 701 Plan, it was suggested that the multiple area begin at a poinfi south of the Wilder Street development leaving approximately enough distance fo complete the cul-de-sac an Wilder Street with single family houses> If 5uch single family housing were fio be built, the distance involved would approximate 250 feet, The question then becomes one of �vhether or not the 170 feet of open space (assurning tf�qt it is properly handled} carries out the spirit and intent of the decision in tf�e 701 Plan. We suggest that if the 1%0 feet is properly handled, that this area of land could successfully ma��e the tronsition between the single fami!y housing and the apartments proposed. You will recall that there are occasions in the Village,such as on Hamline Avenue across from Foodtown, or on Rice Street east of Woodbridge,where the appropriate handl ing of a narrower landscaped open space vras successfully used to create the transition between the single family housing and the proposed �partments, In each of those cases, the space i,�volved was considerably less than the 1; 0 feet suggested here. The princi�al objection, you will recall, to the previous development was one of inconsistency in the handling of space across the r-�tire width of the property in question.