1981_0914_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1309 -81 May 19$1 APPLICANT: rant Cave Page 2 4. Mr. cave' and others have been pursuing this possibility since Mr.. cave . purchased the vacant lots and the raw land part e 1 to the no rtb . The City staf f has attempted to be helpful. to Mr. . - cave in pursuring this obj ecti.ve ` by offering advice 'and- suggestions relevant to potential- land -uses and investor /development organizations.' The City staff has not attelmpted to take. an active role in pursuing what basically should be a free enterprise proposal. Mr. cave has met with the neighbors involved d number of times and apparently pursued a number of avenues to accomplish the purpose. He now reports that he has been unsuccessful in putting together a redevelopment package. He therefore desires at this time to pursue the development of the remaining land for single family occupancy. 5. Members of the Planning commission and council will recall that some months ago Mr, cave presented a similar ,plat and program to the c i t , . but with the intent of developing the land for two-family dwellings. This program was met with opposition by ' the neighbors,' and Mr. cave did not pursue it further. 6. In addition to the 12 single family lots proposed in the preliminary plat for the raw land ) , the applicant proposes to rezone a .86 acs- e tract with 219.4 feet of frontage on Fairview Avenue.- The application indicate's a proposal to construct two, three unit structures on this land as a Planned. Unit Development which would be allowable if the land were zoned to Rib (as proposed) . With respect to this proposal, we have indicated strongly to Mr. cave that this proposal should be accompanied by an architect's design development that could be .demonstrated to be attractive a.nd compatible to the single - family areas that exist to the south, east, and the north. such a design leas not been submitted to this point. Mr. cave has indicated instead that he now proposes to apply for the rezoning of this land to a limited business zone and construct an office building on the site. we have informed Mr. Cave that that is contrary to the polio and informal commitment made to the neighbors inasmuch as we had been pursuing a policy that either all the land will be redeveloped for coramercial uses or none. Mr. Cave indicated in spite of this intent, that he wished to pursue the rezoning of the land to B -1 for 11imi.ted business purposes. Inasmuch as the T)uhllca tuns had already occurred for the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning to R-6, and AF)prova l of-' the PUB f we were not able to change the proposal at this stage. We considered canceling the Public Hearing for the 6 May rmee t inq , Which woul ld .involve sending a new notice to all property owners within 350 feet. This was not done given the fact that the principal decision to be mane at this time is whether or not the neighbors want to continue pursuing the potential for reconversion of the land, or whether they prof: er to proceed with the single family development. This is a big decision inasmuch as once the