Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING REPORT <br />CASE 1309 -81 <br />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 70 to loo feet. The normal policy <br />of the City has been to allow lots of less than 85 f eet frontage if it is <br />consistent with the established lot size in 'the area; Mary of the lots <br />in the development are platted with 100 feet of frontage and 100 feet of <br />depth. However, there are some lots in the existing plat on the east side <br />already platted at 75 feet. It will therefore be a matter of judgement as <br />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 Cakcr es t slightly so as to <br />allow the development of a corner lot on each side of the extended street <br />at the intersection with oakcrest. 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 />