1982_0111_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

C C" C CASE NUMBER: 1309-81 APPLICANT: Sam Cave 1 may 1981 Page '4 4. Mr. Cave and others have been pursuing this possibility since Mr. Cave purchased the vacant lots and the raw land parcel to the north d, The City Staff has attempted to be helpful to Mr. Cave in pursuring this objective by offering advice and suggestions relevant to potential land uses and investor/development organizations. The City Staff has not attempted to take an active role in pursuing what basically should be a free enterprise proposal. Mr. Cave has met with the neighbors involved a number of times and apparently pursued a number o'f 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 City, 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 and )., the applicant proposes to rezone a .86 acre tract with 219.4 feet of frontage on Fairview Avenue. Tice application indicates 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 R-6 (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 and compatible to the single family areas that exist to the south, east, and the north. Such a design has 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 policy and informal commitment made to the neighbors inasmuch as we had been pursuing a policy that either all the land will be redeveloped for commercial uses or rxone. Mr. Cave indicated irl spite of this intent, that he wished to pursue the rezoning of the land to B-1 for limited business purposes. Inasmuch as the publications had already occurred for the Preliminary Plat, Rezoning to R-(', and Alif)roviil of the PTID,, we were not able to change the proposal at this staqe. We consider e'd cancel, i-nq the Public Nearing for the 6 May meeting, wbich woulld involve sending a new notice to all Property owners wi.thln 350 feet. This was riot dot-Le given the fact that the-principal decision tc-) be made at this time is whether or not the neighbors want to continue r)ursuinq the potential for reconversion of the land, or whether they prey er to _proceed with the single family development. This is a big decision inasmuch as once the