10/17/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 4 • Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 that the Acton property, an industrial park, was just south of this area, and Mr. Heath noted a lot of the area had been zoned industrial and commercial, but not this particu- lar piece. Mr. Gourley pointed out a number of items; first, the property fit the Compre- hensive Plan guidelines for the area, secondly, that the P & Z would want to see a com- plete layout as to how the developer intended to divide it before it was rezoned; and thirdly, there was a provision in the ordinance that stipulated that construction would have to begin within one year or the zoning would revert back to its prior use:`' The developer asked if all the parcels would have to be built by then, and was tad' not if if was zoned as a complete parcel, and so long as there was some substantial progress within one year. The developer indicated a Baptist Curch was considering the property although this didn't qualify as a commercial or industrial use. Mr. McLean said this would be a public use, but it was indicated they would like to see an industrial or commercial use there, and there would be no major problem with the rezoning. The deve- loper asked if he went to 5 and 10 acre parcels, would he have to go through a subdivi- sion process; Mr. McLean explained the procedures used by Acton in their industrial park. The developer indicated they had considered 4 lots with two double driveways, and he had spoken to the County Highway Department about this; they had also considered 6 lots, but felt this was too small. He discussed some prospective tenants, and also the sewer situation at Bald Eagle-Tndustrial Park. He did not feel the lack of sewer would cause a problem, and realized there was no possibility of its coming in. Mr. Gourley indicated the Board was in favor of the rezoning, but would like to see a pack- age type plan. He indicated they should requst a specific zoning, and that the attorney could give them some guidance on whether they wanted to go with a general business or light industrial use. Mr. McLean personally felt commercial would be more appropriate, and Mr. Heath asked if it would be possible to zone partly industrial and partly com- mercial within one zoning; it was indicated this would be possible. The developer felt they could convert the request to general business and plat 4 lot sof varyin sizes. Mr. Reinert expressed the opinion that at this time the Board really didTFr`t know what the developer wanted, and wouldn't be able to act on it until they brought in a proposal. The developer indicated that if they stayed with the industrial zoning, the plan would be 3 lots (two 10 -acre and one 16 -acre) on the County Road, and it was his understanding they would not need a plat along with that, and asked for a recommendation to the Council on that proposal-:\ Mr. Reinert felt there was nothing to work with at this point, until the Board saw a complete plan. He indicated that industrial parks generally set a standard lot size throughout, and set the roads up, and then if an indus- try or business came in and needed more space, they combined lots, whatever was necessary. He foresaw a problem with the 10- and 16 -acre lots, because they would probably be coming in to divide that later on " For the benefit of the developer, Mr. McLean reviewed in detail the procedure they gh ould follow in making his submission to the Board. The developer indicated he would like to submit his plan to the consultants before the next meeting, and was told this should be done two weeks in advance; also, he should submit the plan to Hugo as the property was on the county line.: The city would notify all prop- erty owners within 350 feet. Mr. Shearen moved to table the matter. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. It was noted the Board was in favor of a development of this kind. Next on the agenda was a request by Mr. and Mrs. Blain for variance to transfer less than 22 acres to provide frontage for tract B. Mr. Ellison, the buyer, and owner of tract B, was present. The land in question was 80 feet on the culdesac. Mr. Blain owned the house on tract A. Mr. Gotwald had put together this plan, which would still main tain frontage for the Blains, and give Mr. Ellison enough frontage for his lot as well. Mr. McLean indicated the culdesac had been reinstated at the last Council meeting in order to maintain the frontage. Mr. Gourley indicated a long driveway variance would be needed as well; however, Mr. Ellison said Mr. Gotwald had measured it, and found it was not necessary. Mr. Heath moved to recommend that this variance application be passed, con- tingent upon the sale. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion de- clared passed.