Laserfiche WebLink
• ? ?, i <br />with a sand trap a.nd landscape feature and rearranging the rnunber 7 hole and <br />tee, to prohibit balls entering the adjacent residents' yards. There are no <br />sidewalks in either development, and residents may walk to.the course or use a <br />golf cart. Adjacent residents spoke at this point. Mr. Kozimor, president of the <br />Home Owners' Association, thanked the members, the Council, and the Mayor, for <br />their support, and advised that a home will be built on the Shore West lot in <br />Pebblebrook Subdivision. He presented a list of the concerns of the Pebblebrook <br />residents: a home should be constructed on the vacant lot (mentioned above) as <br />soon as possible; Canterbury Road should not have a11 of the traffic added to it <br />from this development, their suggestions, a) road should be added to exi,t to <br />Butternut Ridge (as a triangUlar intersection with Canterbury) with a traffic <br />light installed, b) sidewalks be installed on Canterbury to Butternut; <br />Pebblebrook residents concerned about sanitary and storm sewers, water pressure, <br />and the creek overflowing, and also heavy truck damage to Canterbury Road which <br />has just been repaired, and the safety of residents during the construction <br />period (estimated at 3 years). Mr. Kozimer mentioned the suggestion stated in <br />their list of concerns about an area adjacent to I-480 which could be used to <br />Butternut Ridge as a drive or entrance the construction site. Mr. Abraham, a <br />resident of Pebblebrook, again mentioned the vacant lot bought by Mr. Bower in <br />case that an emergency access would be needed, stating that this put his <br />neighborhood at jeopardy, and requested that the Comnission draft a deed <br />restriction that this lot never be changed from a single family dwelling site. <br />Members pointed out that this issue had been resolved. Mr. Stone, a resident of <br />Canterbury, was concerned since Canterbury was very narrow and also would be <br />torn up by construction trucks. He stated that the residents of Canterbury Road <br />had not requested sidewalks, that the street on the north end of Canterbury was <br />too close.his drive, and he preferred to keep this a rural roada Mr. Mathaney, a <br />resident of Canterbury, is also concerned about the road closest to Butternut, <br />and suggested that a second access was needed in case there was an emergency at the iritersection of Butternut and Canterbury Roads. It was clarified for him that they were allowed to have 6 tm.its per acre, but the golf course land would <br />be considered since the code addresses the package. Mr. Gorris would 1'ike to <br />lmow the actual width of Canterbury Road. It was also clarified that sidewalks <br />could be required on public land, but not necessarily on private roads. Mr. <br />Skoulis questioned if there were ordinances required the developer to provide a <br />bond for the repair of streets which are damaged. He maintained that he had <br />never seen this enforced. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that there is <br />such an ordinance but did not know if the Pebblebrook developers were required <br />to do thisa The Engineering Department will check this. Mrs. Cady, a resident of <br />PebbYebrook, is concerned about the impact on the schools since she believed <br />that there will be children in the development even though it is being marketed <br />for empty nesters. She maintained that the schools are overcrowded now, pointing <br />out that there is another proposed apartment complex at Butternut Ridge and <br />Coltunbia Road and asked that this be considered. She reiterated complaints about <br />traffic on Canterbury and concerns about the safety of one access out of of <br />Canterbury and the over burdpning of the Fire Department. Mr. Gideon, whose <br />property abuts the 6th hole, wants to make sure these buffers will be adequate. <br />Mr. Thomas advised that the all the concerns mentioned are shared by the <br />Commission. The Commission took a break at this point. When the meeting resumed, <br />Mr. Farrell, a resident of Pebblebrook, requested that some kind of rider be <br />attached to the Shore West lot in Pebblebrook that it can never be used as an <br />access during construction or at any other time. He would like this stipulated <br />in case the administration changes prior to this being coristructed. J. Thomas <br />requested to make a motion that would be in the form of a statement to the <br />developers, the resi.dents and members of the Commission. He moved that a