Minutes - 19860403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

108 been directed to reconsider this concept. Waldon reinforced the comments of Collins and the joint staff recommendation on the project. He further reviewed a number of issues including the timing of the development in relation to the still draft joint planning area land use plan; the concern that development of the project in this location is premature; improvements on the public roads, and extension of public water and sewer services. With regard to the concern that the timing is premature he noted that discussions regarding the development of the interchange are continuing, but that the staff views the area around the interchange as a logical place for urban type development as opposed to being a part of the rural buffer. Counting the claim that the request is premature he noted that things will happen very quickly in this area. With reference to road improvements he noted that the applicant had already provided for dedication of additional right-of-way and improvements along Eubanks Road, but that the provision of curb and gutter and a sidewalk was still a point of discussion with the applicant. He continued that given the developing nature of the area it makes sense to require the improvements to meet town standards and curb and gutter and sidewalks are appropriate. Commenting on the water and sewer services Waldon noted that staff had made an exception to the policy regarding the provision of gravity sewer due to the proximity of the site to I-40. He continued that the extension of these services through the use of a pump is appropriate. Councilman Werner asked the date of completion of the I-40 interchange. Waldon stated after June, 1987 . Councilman Howes commented that timing is critical and that it makes sense to consider the proximity of the site to I-40. He continued that rezoning of the site forecloses options for development of the area. He noted the dilemma posed in the desire to preserve the options much longer than the project suggests is "aiding and abetting" versus retarding the process. He noted that there may be a greater community interest in retarding development. He indicated that he would seek to aggregate development proposals in the area versus dealing with them on a piecemeal basis. He noted that his comment bears more on the issues to be discussed at the public hearing on the 17th of April than on this specific project. To maintain low density around the interchange is more favorable. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about a project of comparable density citing Sommerfield Crossing. Waldon responded that the density in that development is 3 .5-4 units per acre. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about the road improvements. Waldon responded the applicant was providing 1/2 of a 47 ' cross-section. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about the status of the property adjacent to the west. Collins responded that the property had been subdivided, but no building permits had been requested. Andresen asked the definition of light industrial uses and Collins replied that the ordinance defines these uses in terms of impacts citing that these would include low density types. Andresen questioned the lack of buffer requirements where residential property adjoins industrial property, noting that given the inter-mixing of uses proposed in the area, these