Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br /> <br />there was agreement on a formula for the property as far as purchasing it was <br />concerned,and that there had been numerous meetings with the neighborhood to <br />discuss the matter. Currently, there is an appraisal in progress which <br />should be completed in the very near future. Mr. Cave stated that he has in <br />the past, however, been close, or at least to the exteht he felt he was close <br />to resolving this issue and it had not occurred. , He indicated he <br />felt he must be realistic in realizing that this may go the way of00ther pro- <br />posals over the last five years and fizzle out at some point. He, therefore, <br />was requesting the Planning Commission to act on his request for rezoning from <br />R-l to R-6 and preliminary plat so that if there is a problem with the commercial <br />solution, he would not have to wait j.'or delay any longer in his plans to develop <br />the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson inquired as to how long Mr. Cave planned to hold onto the land to <br />allow it to be developed in the commercial property. <br /> <br />Mr. Cave indicated that at the maximum he thought a year would be realistic, and <br />that hopefully he would know before that whether this commercial proposal would <br />go through or not. <br /> <br />Mr. Matson asked if anything had been done to resolve the controversy regarding <br />the size of the single family lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated there had been no discussions until recently concerning <br />this issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina asked what the size of the lots to the north of this property along <br />Oakcrest were at the present time. <br /> <br />Mr. Drown indicated that most of the lots were around 75 feet, some being as much <br />as 80. <br /> <br />Mr. Moeller asked if this was the proper time to be discussing this issue since <br />it seemed that the issue of commercial development would be resolved in the very <br />near future. <br /> <br />Mr. Cave again indicated his desire to proceed with the platting at this time, <br />also indicating that financially, this would be of some value to him in being <br />able to hold onto land and could, in fact, in the long run give the commercial <br />proposal more opportunity to occur. <br /> <br />Mr. John Weiss, neighbor in the area, indicated that he did object to the small <br />sized lots on the plat and would request that the Planning Commission reject this <br />kind of proposal in favor of larger lots. He indicated it was his feeling that <br />the area should go commercial, but that unless something could definitely be <br />agreed to that he would like to see proper sized lot platted. <br /> <br />Mr. George Kohl, neighbor in the area, indicated that his objection to the R-6 <br />zoning was that he was afraid this would lead to rezoning all of Fairview for <br />R-6 or some other multi-family use in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina asked what the policy was regarding platting lots that were smaller <br />than the requirement in the City Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the City had in the past platted smaller sized lots <br />as long as it was reasonably in keeping with the rest of the area. <br />