1989-06-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 June 28, 1989 r Mr. Bruno explained that one of the reasons why the developers sought to acquire the cemetery-owned property east of the creek channel was to be able to double-load the proposed Balson Avenue for a more complete neighborhood effect. Chairman McCauley called for the Planning Director's report on the application. Mr. Goldman stated that this newly proposed arrangement was shown to the Commission in a very preliminary way at its April meeting and was rejected. The statement was made at that meeting that if some hardship or practical difficulty arose in developing the property under the plan with five lots fronting on the west side of Balson Avenue, consideration would be given to the revised proposal. Mr. Goldman assumed that the hardships Mr. Bruno was presenting were: a) the acquisition price established by the cemetery owner for additional land west/northwest of the creek creating a prohibitive price for its diversion or widening; and b) the maximum grade for the slope of the creek on its southeast bank as imposed by MSD. Chairman McCauley requested that the applicant respond to questions by Plan Commission members. Mr. Kendall asked if any building permits had been issued for or if any homes were currently being constructed on Lots 96-99. Mr. Bruno replied that no homes were currently permitted for these lots and could not be until after closing on the property. Mr. Safe indicated his belief that the double-loading of homes on Balson Avenue was a desirable effect; the cemetery parcel east of the creek was desirable for four lots. He reiterated his opinion expressed at the April meeting that with proposed Lot 100 facing Blackberry Avenue, the entire common area east of the creek would appear as Lot 100's side and rear yards. Mr. Bruno replied that the same could be said for the northernmost houses on each street in the subdivision. Chairman McCauley pointed out, though, that double-loading the alley west of Balson gave no benefit to Lots 96 and 97; Lot 100 would cut these lots off from view of any common ground. Chairman McCauley also added that a garden wall or fence around Lot 100 as was planned for the other lots currently under development would eliminate the misperceptions about the actual size of Lot 100. Ms. Kreishman also observed that a slight four to five feet in grade differential between proposed Lot 100 as it faced Blackberry and the floodplain area to its west/northwest would serve to distinguish Lot 100's actual size. Mr. Marsh observed that with the addition of the proposed common area east of the creek channel, this current proposal actually lowered the overall density of the subdivision. Chairman McCauley declared the public hearing on this application open; however, as no interested parties were present to speak toward the issue, the hearing was closed. Mr. Rice remarked that the isolated nature of proposed Lot 100 raises several questions. He asked how deliveries would be made to the property and where visitors would park. Mr. Bruno stated that Lot 100 would have a side entry garage off the alley and that visitors would probably have to park along Blackberry Avenue. Mr. Rice expressed his concern that visitor parking on the street would create potential problems similar to those of the single family attached home subdivision approved by the Plan Commission last year. Mr. Bruno felt that only one home, that on Lot 100, would have guests that would need to park on Blackberry; all other homes would use the subdivision streets. In addition, much of the congestion in a subdivision of this type is alleviated by the alleys and the two-car rear entry garages. Mr. Rice confirmed with Planning staff that a condition of subdivision development was a sidewalk along the north side of Blackberry Avenue from Hanley Road to the westernmost boundary of the site.