OCTOBER 23, 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Bryant said primarily west of the railroad tracks is for the most part residential. He said he wasn't sure this was all in the same district, but assumed it was. Attorney Currens said maybe the language in there could be ' both sides of High Street should be used for business suitable to the best use of the ground that is compatible with other uses in the area.' Commissioner Bryant had another question about the TIF District, the Redevelopment Plan refers to the comprehensive plan many times. Should we put anything in the comprehensive plan about the different business districts that are in TIF, so that we don't do anything that would contribute to what is called additional "blight" of an area and use patterns. Attorney Currens said the "blight" of the original district was all infrastructure and when a zoning petition is brought before the board there are development standards and he doesn't think the two really cross over. Commissioner Bryant said there was a point here in a section in discussion where two backyards of residences had been subdivided and turned into rental property and it refers to conflicting land uses like we have on South street and was discussed at the last meeting. He said he wondered if they needed to address those concerns with a statement. Attorney Currens said anything this board does, it doesn't make any difference in the world where it is located, our standards are the same throughout. So, the standards we look at regardless of the fact it is in the TIF District or not in the TIF District isn't relevant to this board. He said we don't want to have different standards for anyone, it is all the same. Commissioner McGuire said he just noticed there wasn't a page number on page 25. A motion was made by Commissioner McGuire, a second by Commissioner Crouch to recommend to the Town Council to approve the comprehensive plan with the changes that were just discussed. Motion carried 9-0. Ross Holloway presented a site plan approval for Lot #14 in Flagstaff Business Park. A 50 foot wide access road off of Hancel Parkway will be maintained by the businesses who use it. It will not be a dedicated street. The proposed use is for a distribution center for Honey & Me. The proposed building is 48,000 square feet, combination office and warehouse space. The loading docks will be on the North side and employee/visitor parking on the East side. There will be water service extended to the property and three fire hydrants. Sanitary sewer will be extended to the building and will be lateral to the building. The access street will be constructed by the developer and should open up the area for further development. Commissioner Williamson asked if this building was visible from Highway 67. Mr. Holloway answered, no, the building was down over the hill and is lower than Poes Restaurant, in fact, you won't be able to see the top of the building. Mr. Holloway said this was a 10.1 acre lot. He told the commission there would be lighting in the parking and loading area. Commissioner Crouch asked about the cul-de-sac and lot 15 & 16, what if somewhere down the road they wanted to divide Lot ]5, would the road be extended to Lot 16. Mr. Holloway said there would be the burden of, Lots 14, ]5, 16, 17, and 18 sharing the maintenance on that drive and it would be up to the developer. The language would have to be appropriate. Bill Montrie, the developer of Flagstaff Business Park, told the commission he would think if Lot 15 was subdivided they would just extend that road. Commissioner Bruner asked if that could be so noted. Attorney Tim Currens said there was no need to note it, because he guaranteed Bill was