pf_00541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�: � ,a�._ � �: a Y l -: � J ''� F S 7 7f3 �,r °; r , F t=f y �,}�� � �K 1 f . lil � �'F' �� �� �� d .� i, y �, ,��., ` �, t ;., , � �k �;;� t-,;� \J October 1, 1969 CAS E NO : APPLICANT: L4CAT 10 N: 541-69 Bristol Company, Inc. Cfeveland Avenue Sout�i of Wilder Street (See Sketch) ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from "R-1" to "R-3A" and Special Use Permit for Development Plan PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The property in question was considered for rezonin� and development approval approximately a year ago, at which time it was denied 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 immediately 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 across the northerly third of the property. You wil I recall that, under the 701 Plan, it was suggested fhat the m+ultiple area begin at a point south of the Wilder $treet development leaving approximately enough distance to complete ths cul-de-sac on Wilder Street with single family houses. If such single farnily housing were to be builP, the distance invalved would approximate 250 feet. The question then becames one of whether or not the 170 feet of open space (assuming that it is properly handled) carries out the spirit and intent of the decision in the 701 Plan. We suggest that if the 170 fe�t is properiy handled, that this area of Ic�nd could successfully make the transition between the single family housing and the apartments prQposed. You will recall thot there are occasians in the V i I(age, such as on Haml ine Avenue across from Foodtown, or on Rice SPreet aast of Woodbridge,where the �ppropriate hand) ing of a narrnwer la�dscaped open space was successfully used to creat�e the transitian between the singie family I�ousing ancl the pro�osed apartments. In each of those cases, the space involved was considerabl y I ess than the 170 feet s�ggested here. The princi�sal objection, you will recall, to the previous development was one of inconsistency in the handl ing of space across the entire width of the property in question.