Laserfiche WebLink
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1998 <br /> considered, and that he had spent his last twelve years of retirement talking about problems with townhouses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sweezy came forward to respond again at this point, and asked whether the five points brought up by Mr. <br /> Pritchett and others had been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission, which had recommended <br /> <br /> approval of the extension of the Special Use Permit. He noted that the setback and stop sign issues brought <br /> <br />I,"",up were minor and easily corrected. He then asked Mr. Morris if there had been a Soil and Erosion Control <br /> plan submitted for the project, and if it had been enforced. Mr. Morris answered in the affirmative to both <br /> questions. Mr. Sweezy stated that Adkins had been in compliance with all legal requirements throughout the <br /> development process and would continue to comply with the laws and statutes. He also stated that. a new site <br /> plan had been presented and approved in 1994, and that Mr. Adkins could be counted on to comply with this <br /> plan. Mr. Sweezy also noted that there were restrictions on units being purchased in multiple numbers with <br /> the intent to rent them out. He summarized by stating that Mr. Adkins had done all required of him, had done <br /> a good job, and asked for renewal of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Teague next noted that the Planning <br /> Commission had recommended several new requirements be met if a Permit extension was granted, and asked <br /> of Mr. Worthy whether or not the Council could require the developer to meet these and other new <br /> requirements. Mr. Worthy then suggested a response from Mr. Sweezy would be useful regarding Planning <br /> Commission recommendations of requirements for an updated soil and erosion control plan, a tree barrier, and <br /> a fence along certain property boundaries. Mr. Worthy went on to state that Council could call for new <br /> requirements as conditions for extension of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Sweezy then stated that there could <br /> be problems with the fence requirement, and asked who would be responsible for maintaining it, Mr. Worthy <br /> then expressed doubt that the requirements for a fence or a new, comprehensive sediment and erosion control <br /> study could be imposed. Council Member Teague then directed a question to Mr. Pxon Ferrill, Planning <br /> Commission member who was present, asking how he thought the Planning Commission might feel about the <br /> removal of the requirements of the tree barrier and the fence. Mr. Fen-ill stated that the Planning Commission <br /> added these two items for esthetics and safety. Vice-Mayor Crabtree then asked how the developer planned <br /> to handle the visual barrier requirement, and was told that this was to have been six-foot pine trees in <br /> <br /> <br />