pf_00541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

n � � October l, 1969 CAS E NO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: � 541-69 Bristol Company, Inc . Cleveland Avenue South 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 rezoning and development a�prova) approximately a year ago, at which time it was denied principally because inadequafie space had been left between the existing single family development to the north and propnsed apartment units. You will recall perhaps,at the time of th� previous proposal an open sperce 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 E(the nearest single family lot fronting on Cleveland Avenue), 2. The applicant now proposes to leave a continuous open strip 170 feet in widfih across the northerly third of the property, You will recall that, under the 701 Plan, it was suggested that the multiple area begin at a point south of fihe Wilder Street deyelopment leaving approximately enough distUnce to complete the cul-de-sac on Wilder Street with single family houses. If such single family housing were to be built, the distanr.e involved would approximate 250 feeta The questian then becomes 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 7p1 Plc�n. We suggest that if the 170 feet is properly handled, that this area of land could successfully make the transition between the single family housing and the apartments proposeda 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,wh�ere the appropriate handl ing of a narrower landscaped open space was successfully used to create the transition between the single family housing and the proposed apartmentso In each of those cases, the space invol ved was considerabl y l ess than the 170 feet suggested here. The principal objection, you will recall, to the previous deve{opment was one of inconsistency in the handling of space across the entire width of the property i n q uesti on .