Laserfiche WebLink
#671 Schlee Builders Inc. <br />April 15, 1982 <br />page 5 <br />included some quads which met with general disfavor <br />by City officials at that time. <br />4. The original applications containing attached twins <br />fronting on Blaine met with general disfavor by the <br />neighborhood. <br />5. I think it is clear that by strict interpretation <br />tLt*'shoSld"te'limlted"w®LR^C^2 SSit/acre <br />even though the PRO would allow clustering and individual <br />lot sizes less than half acre or 100 ft wide. <br />6. The developer has not proceeded with the previous <br />applications partially because he believes <br />single family proposal is a better plan for the neighbor <br />hood and for the market. <br />7.Mixed Singles and Doubles <br />a.) This is an option that more closely meets <br />the LR-lC-1 PRD intent. It would allow the <br />lot sizes to vary so singles could be built <br />on 70 ft + lots, and doubles on smaller 100 ft+ <br />lots. <br />b.) The developer says he will not proceed if <br />this is required because of his preception <br />of the market. <br />G.Multi“Family _^a.) It has been suggested that one or two apartment <br />buildings be considered on the high point or <br />the property with all remaining land being <br />common open space. <br />b.) The total number of units would remain about <br />the same, although more than 48 is likely <br />by the formula because there would be far <br />less street ROW required. <br />c.) The developer says he can not proceed with <br />this because of current financing climates. <br />9.Variance .a.) Any of the above options including any single <br />family or multifamily structures would require <br />a variance from Section 34.621c* <br />b.) It would be difficult to demonstrate hardships <br />in this type of situation yet some justification <br />is required for variance approval* <br />c.) If e variance for detached units is considered^ <br />the logical reason for approving it is because