Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />January 25, 1995 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />the University City Municipal Code in that the lots widths and areas are not in substantial <br />conformance with the prevailing pattern of existing development on the block frontage. The <br />block frontage was platted with a 124.85 foot wide lot at the north corner, an 80 foot wide lot <br />at the south corner and seven 100 foot wide lots in between. Two of the 100 foot wide lots have <br />each been divided in two building sites, but these parcels which range from 48 feet to 52 feet <br />in width are not platted as individual lots. The 80 foot corner lot contains two four-family <br />apartment buildings that front on Pershing. Mr. Goldman referred the Commission Members <br />to a reduced copy of the plat sheet for their information. <br /> <br />Mr. Marsh asked if any members of the public wished to make comments. No members of the <br />public asked to speak. <br /> <br />Mr. Solodar asked Mr. Goldman how the other two lots on the block were subdivided. Mr. <br />Goldman stated that he was not sure how it was done. However, the subdivision code used to <br />not require a formal subdivision unless the lots were divided into three or more. Now the <br />Recorder of Deeds does not record plats without municipal approval. Mr. Solodar stated that <br />if you include the lots on the east side of Hanley the proposed resubdivision meets the prevailing <br />pattern of development on the block frontage. <br /> <br />Mr. Kahn stated that the pattern is that there really is no pattern. He feels that the proposal is <br />consistent with the neighborhood and will not hurt the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Goldman stated that the Plan Commission's decisions are very important when there is such <br />a close call as in this situation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner stated that if the prevailing pattern across the street is considered, the proposal <br />should be permitted. However, she feels that Hanley is such a wide street that the development <br />on the east side should not be considered. The surrounding lots on the block on the west side <br />of Hanley should only be considered. Since there is no pattern, you must look to the Zoning <br />Code requirements for lot width and area. There the code requires 60' wide lots, which is not <br />the case here. Therefore, she will be voting against the proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Peniston stated that the prevailing pattern in the block is wider than 50' wide lots and <br />therefore will be voting against the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Safe stated that he did not see a prevailing pattern in the block. The standard is 60' wide <br />lots and 50' wide lots are adequate. Therefore, he will be voting for the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Marsh stated that the proposal is reminiscent and nearby the Clayton Olde Towne area. He <br />feels that dividing the wider lots to build nice new homes has helped that area and thinks that <br />aIde Towne is a good place to live. He there fore will be voting for the proposal. He feels that <br />the prevailing pattern in the neighborhood behind the site and across the street is met. The new <br /> <br />m-1-2S.plc <br />