09/24/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>- foresee any other problems with the stacking, but suggested setting a limit on the rnunber of units which could be stacked in a triplex building. He stated that the density is less than allowed and believed this is a well planned commtu-lity, and the questions regarding bu.ffering can be addressed later. He read a portion of the Single Family Cluster codes pertaining to the Plann;ng Commission's report to Council which states, in essence, if the Commission feels that because of the nature and quality of a proposed design, it may recommend to Council that an adjustment in such regulations, standards, and criteria be made, provided, however that such adjustments will not be in conflict with the promotion with the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. He explained that, even though this proposal does not specifically meet all requirements of the code, there is latitude given to the Commission which should be based on unique characteristics and situations as far as the site- is concerned, and modifications can be recommended to Council. He believed that thi.s project is unique and has an outstanding design. He did not wish to address the size of the tmits since the City had a qualified Building Commissioner. He clarified that his suggestion was to limit the stacked units as they are shown here (two per building), and pointed out this design is not prevalent in this area. Mr. Morgan is concerned about the density of the Vista Homes, questioning the 3,8 units per acre. Mr. Hill clarified that 6 units an acre is the maximtun, and the total development area must be considered, not just the area around the Vista Homes. Mr. Orlowski pointed out that the 70 acres included the cluster home development and the golf course which would ha.ve two separate owners, and that Mr. Bower had agreed to deed the land up to the fairways to the cluster home development. He has a problem with including the golf course as green area for the development. Mr. Hill stated that the developer could make this a private golf course for the development, but allowing the course to remain public should be to the City's advantage, and he is confident that this can be accomplished with the help of the Law Departmenta Mr. Orlowski questioned if Mr. Bower had any figures on the costs of maintaining and changing the golf course. Mr. Bower clarified that they will be redesigning the golf course, but he had no definite figures at this time. The developer had previously mentioned having deed restrictions to assure that the use of the golf course is not changed, however, Mr. Orlowski had a concern that the deed restrictions might not stand up in court. He would prefer that there would be an agreement with the City that, in the event tha.t the golf course was no longer profitable; the City be given the first opportunity to purchase it from the owners at a price deterr,iined by the fair market value of the land as determined by a licensed appraiser with consideration of the income of the course with more weight placed on the actual income generated by the use of the golf course. Mr. Bower agreed that they could give the city the option of the first right of refusal, but this would have to be reviewed by their legal counsel. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised the Commission that the Building Cor,ni.ssioner had initially found the proposal to be complying to the code in most of the issues. As far as the density is concerned, determining the number of units per each acre would be one way of looking at it; but, the courts would probably look at the entire development area for the density, since they frequently favor the property owner when property rights are being restricted. He stated that he would have no problem with the deed restrictions if they are stated clearly and is sure that they would be upheld. He doubted that it would be proper to restrict the course to remain public, but he would have to check on that, since this would not have no bearing on health, welfare, and safety. He believed that if this is submitted as one development area, and the owner agreed that this area would be maintained as either a golf course or as green area it would be upheld by the courts. Mr. Skoulis questioned if this could be considered as one development since the homes would be owned individually and the golf course would be owned separately. Mr. Dubelko responded that the code indicates that this type of 2