Agenda - 06-30-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

156 - Planning Board-'-----1. 2 March 1, 1988 IIM Motion: Mr. Guild moved that the Planning Board recommend that the Council adopt the staff recommendation (see Attachment 1). Ms. McLendon seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. • Rosemary Square - Application for Modification of Site Plan Approval (SPR-80A-10). Mr. Waldon referred the Board to the staff report and recommendation that the Planning Board recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution (see Attachment 2) amending condition 1110 of the November 3, 1986 site plan approval to modify and clarify the construction start and completion dates. Mr. Waldon explained that the parenthetical statement in condition 1110 which referred to prior litigation was no longer operative. - Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal and Fraser Morrow representative Whit Morrow were present (as co-owners of the project) and were available to answer questions. Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had acted on this request in January in its role as co-owner, and that the Planning Board was now acting on the request in its role as regulator. There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Francisco moved that the Planning Board approve the staff recommendation. Mr. Guild seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Merritt Mill Road Duplexes Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (SD-90-A-1). Mr. Roesler referred the Board to the staff report and the staff recommendation that the Planning Board recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution (see Attachment 3) approving the application. The applicant's representative had not arrived. There was no public comment. The Board discussed the soil conditions in the area and the topography of adjacent land to the south. Mr. Roesler stated that the proposed subdivision met the Town's development regulations. • Referring to lot 114, several Board members stated that they did not like "flag" lots. Questions were asked about landscape buffer requirements. Mr. Roesler replied that the "flag" design of lot #4 met Town regulations, and that the requirements for landscape buffers also met Town regulations. The necessity of condition 09 requiring a fire flow report was questioned. It was suggested that a fire flow report was an unnecessary expense for a develop- ment of this size, particularly in view of the fact that the surrounding existing development was served by existing hydrants. Condition #1 was discussed at length. Several Board members questioned the • need to require this developer to install a sidewalk along his property's Merritt Mill Road frontage. Questions" were-r iised about whose responsibility it was to build the sidewalk (the developer or the Town). my