Laserfiche WebLink
. ? <br />concluded that his thinking was different from that of everyone else. He did not <br />believe that the the common land area which was separately owned could be <br />considered, and was Lmder the impression that the Commission could not look at <br />the entire acreage (the coirunon land area and the development area land) in <br />considering the number of units per acre which could be on the property. He has <br />been advised that he was looking at this the wrong way. Most of the other items <br />he was concerned about ha.ve been taken care of with the new design. He is <br />concerned that the stacked triplex homes do not conform to the code and pointed <br />out that this was previously a concern of the Building Commissioner. Mr. Conway <br />agreed stating that the code provided only for units be joined by the walls. Mr. <br />Skoulis stated that-the Commission must determine if the stacked units should be <br />allowed, not only in this development, but in others. He agreed that the variance <br />for the living area seems to have been resolved. He stated that since some major <br />variances are being allowed, if and when this development is approved, it should <br />be made clear that these variances are being approved because of the unusual <br />nature of this development. Mr. Gorris agreed that these variances are being <br />approved only because the golf course is being preserved, and with the <br />combination of the golf course and the units there will only be 3.8 units per <br />acre instead of 6 which are allowed and actually the City will be winning on <br />green space. Mr. Skoulis further stated that by looking at the entire acreage to <br />determine the number of units per acre could, in many instances, create a high <br />concentration of units in one area with a lot of open space in another area, and <br />is concerned that perhaps there are too many units in the Vista Home area. Mr. <br />Gorris pointed out that there would be huge fairways with no homes on them at all <br />and the purpose of the Single Family, Cluster development was to encourage some <br />imaginative development on some of the larger parcels of land. Mr. Skoulis agreed <br />that the golf course should be saved, but is concerned that this concentration of <br />units might be going too far. Mr. Gorris stated that it should be made clear in <br />the motion that this proposal is being approved because of its tmiqueness, and he <br />believed that this could be defended if other developers wanted similar <br />variances. Mr. Skoulis is concerned if the Commission could legally stop other <br />developers from building triplex units after having approved variances for this <br />development. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that, if the Commission <br />approves this development, they would not necessarily have to exercise their <br />discretion in the same fashion on the next proposal unless it was virtually the <br />same as this one with the inclusion of a golf course. Mr. Skoulis is concerned <br />about the concentration of units on Canterbury Road, since all those people would <br />have to exit onto Canterbury. Mr. Gorris responded that the land as zoned now <br />could be developed for 200 larger single family homes probably with more people <br />who would be using Canterbury. Councilman D. McKay stated that Mr. Bower had come <br />close to adhering to the code in this last proposal, but since Mr. Hill (the <br />planner who help formulate this code) had stated for the record that he had not <br />thought of style of triplex buildings, but there was nothing wrong with them, it <br />would be difficult to prevent that type of development in the future. City <br />Engineer Deichmann advised that he had reviewed the developers response to <br />questions brought up at the last meeting. ti+Tith a traffic signal at Canterbury and <br />Butternut there would be an acceptable level of service. Mr. Gorris questioned if <br />anyone had ever studied the intersection of Kennedy Ridge and Butternut. Mr. <br />Deichmann stated that at present they could not get a reliable indicator because <br />of the construction, but they had added a left turn lane which should help. This <br />should be looked at in the future. He suggested that a right turn lane on <br />CanterbUry would be helpful. In reference to the Canterbury Road pavement, he <br />suspected that it was not designed to today's standards and suggested that there <br />should be a-14aH road for use by construction equipment. The Cleveland Water <br />Htry`- <br />2 <br />?