CCMin_59Apr9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1186 S. HASBROUCK, 2~9~59 1. General Land Use. There would be nothing., wrong with the use of this area for multiple dwellings, provided the development were to be designed in away that would protect the adjacent res- idential neighborhood. However, there should be either a garden apartment development covering the whole area or limited commer- cial use adjacent to Larpenteur with the north part devoted to single or two-family residences. 2. 102 units are proposed for 2.6l~ acres. This is about 1,100 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit. Minimum zoning require- ments in the suburbs I am working with range from 2,800 sq. ft. to 3,300 sq. ft. In other words, the density of this proposed development is from two to three times too high. 3. Floor area. Satisfactory. ~. Off-street parking. One space per unit is provided. However the spaces are a trifle small - 9 x 20 instead of 10 x 20, which is a minimum. Also ti^tith the long term trend in car use„ expansion space should be provided for an additional 1~2 space per dwelling unit. 5. Screening. The plan shows no screening where the development is adjacent to a single family residential area. 6. Set Back. The 30' set back along' Fry should be increased to ~5 or 50 feet. The buildings within the development are much too close to one another (areflection of the excessive density). 7. Building Design. Considering the quality of the homes in the immediate area, the design does not seem compatible with the neighborhood. Lower structurE;s would seem more appropriate, for example. 8. Site Design. There is a lack of adequate recreation area and improper handling of traffic. The site plan would result in con- siderable traffic encroachment upon surrounding; homes. Recommendation: Denial of the proposed multiple dwelling develop- ment on the grounds that. it fails to meet minimum planning standards. PRE,ZIIt~INARY RECOr~~VI~IDA.TTON FOR GEDERAL AREA: 1. The zoning ordinance should be amended to include a "Limited Business" category. (clinics, office buildings, apartments, rest- homes, etc.) 2. The south part of this property - and probably the area to the east - should be placed in this new business zone. 3. The north part of the property should be rezoned to single family residence, but with multiple dwellings permitted by special use permit. Signed: Sherman S. Hasbrouck, Planning Consultant. Now on February 11th, the Planning; Commission made the following recommendation to. the Village Council: