Laserfiche WebLink
PIANNING REPORT <br />CASE NUMBER: 1309-81 Page-2 <br />should remain and that, the remainder of -the land should be developed for <br />single family purposes. In that case., there may ' be some question as to <br />the lot sizes proposed inasmuch _ as they do not conform to the 85 foot <br />minimum frontage. The lots vary from 7 0 -to 10 0 f eet { The - normal pol is - <br />of- the City has been to allow lots of less than 85 feet frontage if 'it is <br />consistent with the established lot -size in the area. Many of the-lots <br /># the development are platted with 100 feet of frontage and 100 f yet of <br />depth. However, there are some lots in the -existing plat on the east side <br />already .platted at 7 5' feet.- , It will therefore be a matter �f judgMent a's <br />4 to whether or not the lot size as proposed -is reasonable!. <br />5. we have also discussed -with Mr. -Cave the 'possibility of realigning the <br />stub street to be extended northward into oakcrest slightly so as to <br />allow the development of a' corner lot on each side of the extended street <br />at the intersection with Oa crest. Should the Commission and Council decide <br />the new lots should_ conform with ordinance standards, a lot plan could be <br />devised conforming to ' such standards. <br />