pf_00541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

w � • � i � � � (This case was tabiec� at t�`�e applicant's request at the Cctober lst Meetinc�, �ollowing is a copy of th� report prepared for that hearin�. ) Decembe�- 3, 196�� CAS� NQ: APPI.ICANi': LOC ��T IO � ti 541-69 Bristol Company, Inc. Cleveland Avenue South of Wilder Street (See Sketch) ACTION REQI)E5TED: Rezoning from "R-1" to "R-3A" and Special Use Permit for DevelopmF�nt Plan PLA�lNING CONSlDERATIONS; 1. The property in question was considered for rezoning and development approval approxirnately a year ago, at which,tim� it was deneed principally because inadequate space had been left between the existing single family development to the north and proposed apartment units. You will recall perhaps,at� the time of the previous proposal an open space had been left for the extension of the cul-de-sac to terminate Wilder Street, but that development had been proposed immediatefy south of Lot 8(the nearest single family lot fronting on Cleveland Avenue). 2. The applicant now proposes to leave a continuous open strip 170 feet in width ocross tH�e northerly third of the c�roperty. You will recall that under the 701 Plan, it was suggesfied that the multiple area begin at a point south of the Wilder Street development leaving approximately enough distance to complefe the cul-de-sac on Wilder Street with single family houses. If such single family housing were to be builfi, the distance involved would approximate 250 feet. The question then becomes one of whether or not t{,e 1?0 feet of open space (assuming that it is properly handled) carries out tlie spirit and intent of the decision i� tlie 701 Plan. We suggest that if the 170 fer�t is properly handled, that this area of land could successfully make the transition between the sangle family housing and the apartmerts proposed. You will recall that there are occasia�s in the Village,such as on Hamline Avenue across from Foodtown, or on Rice Street east of Woodbridge,wl�ere the appropriate handling of a narrower landscaped open spac� vras successfully used to create t{ie transition between � the single family housing and the proposed apartments. In each of those cases, the space involved was considerably less than the 170 feet suggested here. The princi�al objection, you will rFcall, to the previous d�velopment was one of inconsistency in the handling cf spacP acro;s 'rhe r-ntire width of the property in qu�stion.