Laserfiche WebLink
<br />there did not seem to be a problem, he would like to re-review them, but <br />preliminarily he is satisfied with them. Mr. Skoulis questioned if the developer <br />has restricted renting these units. Members questioned how that could be <br />controlled since a single family home can be rented. Mr. Dubelko stated that this <br />could be done by the developer. Mr. Skoulis stated that it was possible that, if <br />a majority of the units were rented this could be, in effect, a multi-family <br />development. Mr. Bowen did not agree that this should be a concern, since these <br />are very e.xpensive units, and rentals would be very high. In reference to the <br />buffering, Mr. Bower explained that the he has worked with the residents along <br />hole number 7 to work out a landscaping plan that would modify the existing berm. <br />He has received written comments from those residents, and these comments are <br />being incorporated into the landscape plan. Mr. Gideon, one of those residents, <br />stated that they have been working with Mr. Bower, and his only concern is that <br />if the buffering does not prove to be adequate, he would like some provision that <br />additional landscaping will be installed. Mr. Dubelko stated that he would not <br />recomnend that the City get involved in the development after the approvals are <br />given, he would suggest that they get the best plan possible at this time. He has <br />never recorrunended an open ended approval, and he would not want the City to have <br />become involved in a dispute between a home owner and a developer. He further <br />clarified that there are two issues in this proposal, the building plans must be <br />approved, and the Conunission must make recommendations to Council that an <br />ordinance to rezone the property should be drawn up. Mr. Gorris questioned if Mr. <br />Bower would agree that if he or his successors are l.mwilling or tmable to operate <br />this as a golf course, if the ownership of the golf course portion would revert <br />to the City. Mr. Bower responded that he would give the City the first <br />opportunity to purchase it. Since that is the case, Mr. Orlowski believed that it <br />should be stated that if it becomes improfitable to operate the golf course, then <br />the City has the right to purchase the golf course at a price determined by a <br />licensed appraiser with the consideration of the income of the course and that <br />more weight should be placed on the actual income generated by the use of the <br />golf course in the structuring of the price than the actual value of the land. <br />The members questioned how this could be donem Mr. Orlowski clarified tha.t this <br />project is based on the premise that the golf course would remain as green area <br />and this land could be valued uranensely for another use, such as a foundry or <br />whatever, but if it is going to be purchased by the City it should be made as <br />economical as possible for the City to purchase it. Mr. Thomas pointed out that <br />there would have to be an assembly and lot split of this property, and since this <br />would happen at one time, he suggested that when the lots are split off and <br />configured for the purpose of the golf course, that portion be rezoned from <br />Cluster Home to a classification that would limit its use only to recreation. Mr. <br />Dubelko would not recommend this since, at a later date, some one could come back <br />and object that the land was not appropriately zoned. He still advised that <br />requiring the restrictive covenant that the land be maintained either as a golf <br />course or a green area be included since that land was taken into account in <br />order to compute the density of the development and any change in use would <br />interfere with the density of the proposal. The golf course is part and parcel of <br />this development and should be subject to a restrictive covenant that if it <br />cannot be maintained as a golf course it must remain green, but there would be <br />nothing wrong Wi.th adding a provision that if the City preferred to purchase it, <br />they could purchase it as a golf course, but they might not want to buy a golf <br />course. Mr. Bower stated he had agreed to that. Mr. Orlowski reminded the members <br />that Mr. Bower had stated that, with the proper buffering, it may go as far as <br />the fairway, but the rough on several holes will be part of the development. Mr. <br />Gorris agreed that the deed restrictions should state this will be a golf course <br />4 <br />?