Minutes 01/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.140 TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1998 alternating rows. Vice-Mayor Crabtree said he had not seen these in place on his last visit to the site. The Vice-Mayor then posed the question to City staffof what the developer could do with the property if it was developed under R-9 zoning, without extension of the Special Use Permit. The answer provided was that single-family and multi-family dwellings could be built, trees could be cut down at the will of the property owner without restriction, and a swimming pool and pool house could be built. Mr. Teague then asked whether there was an existing standard for visual barriers, to which David Reeves, Development Specialist & Building Official for the City, replied that there was not. Mr. Teague then asked Mr. Worthy whether the City could re-define visual barrier, as opposed to what was stated in the original Special Use Permit language. Mr. Worthy responded that since the project had been twelve years in development he doubted that such a change could be imposed. He also stated that there would need to be some significant change in general conditions that would demonstrate the necessity for such new or enhanced requirements on the developer in order to impose them. Council Member Haskell then stated that a change in the visual barrier definition was really needed, since the first effort had not worked. Mayor Adams noted the presence of native hardwoods in the area, and suggested that something specific in the requirement for the type of tree used would be more effective. Mr. Worthy asked how many trees might be required in keeping with the Planning Commission's latest recommendations, and Mr. Morris stated twenty had been called for, Mr. Worthy then asked Mr. Adkins what this might cost, and whether he would have a problem with such a new requirement to create a visual barrier. Mr. Adkins stated that the cost might be $600 to$800, and that he would have a problem with such an additional requirement. Mr. Worthy then stated he could support the requirement for $600 to $800 worth of trees, but not a fence requirement for safety, since the hazard cited relative to the fence requirement was on the Royal Oaks Property itself ~Mrs. Lynn Pritchett came forward to speak, and stated that the hazards prompting the need for a fence included land erosion, fallen trees, and the inclination of young children to play among the fallen trees. Mr. Keim again came forward to speak, and reiterated that it was the developers responsibility, according to State law, to do a more thorough study of sediment and erosion control issues and submit a plan, and the developer had not done so. Mr. Ashwell then stated that two