My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/10/1991 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1991
>
1991 Planning Commission
>
09/10/1991 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:54 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:41:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1991
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/10/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. ; . <br />DuLLeiz1uL niage 1nLersectlon; 1z triere w111 be a <br />intersections, and if so, how to minimize the probli <br />pavement will adequately handle the increased traff: <br />traffic controls should be considered. He advised <br />Griffith, Assistant traffic engineer. In response tc <br />Bower advised: the entire site is somewhat less than <br />are a little over 12 acres; the Golf Homes and Go] <br />They have not defined the relationship of the Golf H <br />maintained that they could comply to the code <br />reiterated that they would be willing to legally re; <br />to be a golf course will be kept as a golf course. <br />various questions, Mr. Conway advised that he doe <br />pond that is shown, but the ordinance requires that <br />a pool or pond. In reference to the density quest: <br />that if they remove the fairway from the total land <br />about 5 units per acre. Mr. Kephart explained that <br />open guest parking in various areas scattered arour <br />remain private and will be maintained by the home 4 <br />city offers trash pick up to.this district they woul, <br />done privately. They do not lrnow what the maintenanc <br />out that the home owners' association would not havE <br />the golf course. Mr. Skoulis stated that he like <br />problems with the stacking of the Vista Homes; the <br />proximity of the Vista driveway to Butternut Ridge <br />that they are considering a single entrance ofj <br />access to both developments. He also stated that dur <br />were not able to get enough homes into the Vist-a <br />units. Mr. Thomas believed that two larger, atta <br />higher price, should still work out the same economi, <br />that the Vista area is bounded primarily by I-480. <br />questions, Mr. Bower speculated that perhaps half <br />golf, not all of them, that residents might drive tc <br />parking spaces there should be adequate; that the <br />i adverse etfect on nearby <br />ms; if the existing asphalt <br />c voltune; and what type of <br />Mr. Bower to contact Larry <br />Mr. Gorris' questions, Mr. <br />70 acres; the Vista houses <br />f Course would be 58 acres. <br />>mes and Golf Course, but he <br />as stated previously. He <br />;trict tha.t the land that is <br />In response to the member's <br />? not know the depth of the <br />a fence be installed around <br />on, the developers advised <br />their architect estimated <br />there are small pockets of <br />i the site; all roads will <br />wners' association, if the <br />L use it, if not it will be <br />a fees will be, but pointed <br />the expense of maintaining <br />the concept, but did have <br />size of the tmits; and the <br />Road. Mre Bower responded <br />Canterbury with internal <br />ing their discussions, they <br />area without stacking the <br />hed structures, sold at a <br />:ally. Mr. Bower pointed out <br />In response to Mr. Thomas' <br />of the residents would play <br />the clubhouse, and the 100 <br />people who use the course, <br />want it to stay a public course. Mr. '1'homa.s questioned if the deed restriction <br />would specify a public course. Mr. Bower responded it was their intent that it <br />stay public, but he had not considered the wording of the deed restriction. Mr. <br />Thomas pointed out that there would be fewer restrictions if the course were <br />private, but Mr. Skoulis did not believe that it would be profitable. He also <br />believed if the Commissions allows the 2 major concessions for the Vista Homes, <br />they wi.llbe setting a precedent for future proposals, the area of some of these <br />are 30% below what is required; and the ones that are stacked, are really not <br />cluster homes. Mr. Orlowski agreed. Mr. Bowen is more concerned about the square <br />footage. Mr. Thomas stated that the stacking, they way it is presented, does not <br />bother him. Mrs. Hughes does not have a problem with the square footage, and <br />believed this development woiil.d be a plus, but does not want it done at the <br />safety and expense of the residents who have built North Olmsted. In reference <br />to the access roads, Mro Orlowski suggested that a light would be needed at the <br />intersection of Butternut Ridge and Canterbury which would probably have to be <br />widened, and that Canterbury Road might have to be widened. In reference to the <br />mound between the golf course and the residents adjacent to hole rnunber 7, Mr. <br />Bower stated that a committee of residents wanted the mound reshaped and <br />replanted with Austrian Pine, Blue Spruce, Norway Pine, along with some <br />deciduous trees, and they have agreed as long as they are assured that all the <br />residents were in agreement. He was given a document agreeing to this, and Mr. <br />Bower stated he would comnit.to this. They are also reconfiguring hole rnamber 6 <br /> <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.