pf_00541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

0 n �J � .lanuary 7, 1970 CAS E NUMBER: �4PPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUES TED: � ► � � 541-�69 Brist��l Comperny, (nc. East of Clevelcrnd Avenue, south of Wil�ler Str�et (See Sketch) Rezoning from R-1 to R-3A an�� Special Use Permit for PlanneG unit Development Approvc�l FIANNING CONSIDERATIONS: �• This application was reviewed in considerable detail at the last me ' the Plan�ing Commission, at which time a public hearin eting of rezoning and the special use permit. You will recall that he apl! i�cation was tabled to the January 7th meeting, so as to give the neighbors a chance to work with the applicant to a further exfient regarding the handlin land between the proposed development and the existin 9 oF the Street, g residences on Wilder 2• You will recpll there seemed to be considerable acceptance of the d ment proposal with the principal area of concern being the ways in which the transition is handled from the development to the res�dences on the north side. It was anticipated that the applicant would make an attem t to meet with the neighborhood privately, so as to discuss further the detals of the (andscaping pnd screening proposals that might best achieve the des�re t protect the single family residential investments. � 3• The property, which measures 581 feet along Cleveland Avenue of 518 feet, has more area than is required for the number of unitsW'ro osdepth (98 units). There will be sufficienf area if only the southerl 455 fee t' �d rezoned, leaving the northerly 126 feet in the existing single fpmi(y zone. Th� merit to this method is that the residences to the north wil( have ad ' protection inasmuch as no apartment oriented development (building or darkinpl can be put in the 1�6 feet left unzoned. The planned unit develo men t r �) the bui Idings to be set back 170 feet �rom the north propert I ine pnd • p°poses i70 feet which sh o u l d b e c a r e f u l l y lan dsca e d y � � t i s t h i s consent of the nei ghb o r s a f f e c t e d to t he nor�t h .� prefer4bly with the advi c e i n 4• We suggest that the design proposal of the buildings and the site excellent one, unlike some of the more typical apprtment proposalsa n'then Metropolitan Area. The important points to consider in our opinion is that of retaining the 126 feet of single fami ly zoning to the north, and some con for a specific design of the 170 feet of open space to be retained between �ern apartment structures and the single family arep, the