1992-02-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . February 26, 1992 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 and a width of 71 feet at the building line. The lot areas and widths do not conform to the prevailing pattern of the parcels under single ownership and are slightly larger than the pattern of 60 foot wide lots that were recorded in the original subdivision. He stated that he cannot endorse the proposal for resubdividing because of the great disparity between proposed Lot W and the development pattern and character of the neighborhood. In practical terms it may not be possible to design a house on Lot W that can meet the zoning code requirement for substantial conformance with the prevailing height and mass of the adjacent and surrounding single-family detached residences on the same block frontage. Ms. Whittington responded that Section 34-30.3(a) states that a lot need only conform with the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood when that lot is below, not above, the minimum standards stated in the that section. Both lots exceed the minimum standards of that section and therefore are exempt from that requirement. Further, Mr. Goldman's assertion that it may not be possible to build a house that conforms with the height and mass standards, is also irrelevant at this point. This hearing is concerned only with the resubdivision of the lot, not construction that may occur later. At this point, height and mass of a structure can not enter into the Commission's decision. She further stated that this resubdivision meets all of the requirements specifically set forth in Municipal Code of University City, Section 29-4(a) through (h). In particular the requirements for sub-sections (d) and (e) are met and therefore, there is no lawful basis to deny this request. The Chairperson asked for comments from the public. Jay Sushelsky, 7334 Westmoreland, stated that he owns the property to the east of the subject property. He feels that there is more opposition to this proposal then there was for the January proposal because it divides a central property and disrupts the flow of lots from it. He stated that if one would drive down the block they would observe the standard of the urban design that narrow lots are on the ends and the wider lots are in the middle. He feels that there is no way to build a second residence that will conform to the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood on that lot. Mickey Peniston, 7360 Westmoreland, stated that she owns the property to the west of the subject property. She stated that the construction on the new lot will totally destroy the 70 year old trees on the west lot. She further stated that the root system of the trees on her lot will be affected by construction. She feels that the spaciousness of 7346 Westmoreland makes it the central lot of the neighborhood and the placement of a squeezed-in house will reduce the property values of the surrounding homes. John Costello, 7274 Maryland, stated that a majority of the neighbors in the area are opposed to the resubdivision. Yvette Dubinsky, 7370 Westmoreland, stated that Westmoreland is one of the finest streets in University City and allowing this resubdivision will cause all neighborhoods in University City to be resubdivided. Charlie Caspari, 7330 Westmoreland, m-2-26.plc