Laserfiche WebLink
.`., ? . <br />. <br />or will remain green which will keep the density as it. is. Mr. Orlowski was <br />concerned that the deed restrictions might not remain in effect in the future. <br />Mr. Skoulis asked Mr. Dubelko if it would be necessary to include in the deed <br />restriction that the golf course be maintained at all times regardless of whether <br />or not it is economical. Mr. Dubelko agreed pointing out that this was one of the <br />concerns of the Building Commissioner. Mr. Conway stated that some of the <br />subdivisions with tennis courts and swimming pools have not had a strong enough <br />covenant and the surrounding home owners did not want to ma.intain them, and he is <br />concerned that if the golf course became defunct, no one would want to cut the <br />grass or maintain it. Mr. Dubelko stated this would be appropriate in the <br />covenant deed, especially that the buildings in particular be maintained, since <br />this could be a concern for health and safety, but the property itself would <br />probably just turn into a woods. Mr. Gorris then made the following motion: While <br />we believe that the appropriate zoning for this area is single Family "A", <br />considering this imiqueness of the development, we recommend the rezoning of the <br />various parcels of land which comprise the North Olmsted Go1f Course to Single <br />Family, Clustero Additionally, because of this uniqueness, we recommend that <br />variances be granted for the following items which do not conform to code, <br />namely: number 1, the tmits designated as the Vista Homes are not attached <br />strictly by walls, but are stacked; number 2, the golf course which is designated <br />in the development acreage is not under common ownership, nor are the accessory <br />buildings serving this golf course; ntunber 3, various areas throughout the Vista <br />and Golf Homes do not ma.intain the 25 foot set back from the rear of the <br />structures to the common boundary lines; number 4, the Vista Homes do not meet <br />the main floor area required for a single family in an "A" District residence <br />(this motion is addressing the revised plans for the Vista Homes as presented <br />tonight by Mr. Bower). The Comnission recommends that these variances be granted <br />because the development preserves the golf course and the total dwelling units <br />will not exceed 3.8 tmits per acre within the development. We also request that <br />the Law Department provide guidance in the area of deed restrictions which wi11 <br />guarantee that this property will continue to be operated as a golf course; <br />however, in the event the developer or his successors determine that it.is not <br />profitable or in their best interest to operate this as a golf course, that those <br />areas will remain green areas and all buildings and/or other appurtenances <br />associated with it will be maintained or removed. We are concurrently forwarding <br />these plans to the Architectural Review Board requesting that they pay particular <br />attention to the buffering along this property with any existing neighbors, and <br />request that they make their report directly to Council. Their recomendations <br />will be a condition of our approval. This is one motion approving both the <br />rezoning request and the preliminary site plan. After some discussion the motion <br />was seconded by J. Thomas. Roll call on motion: Gorris, Thomas, Bowen, Hughes, <br />and Skoulis, yes. Mr. Orlowski, no. Motion carried. <br />2) Developers Diversified, Ltd. and W. & Z. Properties Ltd. Resubdivision Plat. <br />The proposal is to resubdivide parcel no. 1 of the Assembly and Subdivision <br />approved and recorded in April 1990: Location is north of Butternut Ridge Road <br />on the west side of Great Northern Blvd. (and north - abutting the approved <br />Butternut Ridge Apartments site). Zoning is "A" Residence, single, entirely. <br />Proposed sublot/parcel no. 1-c is landlocked, having ingress/egress to Great <br />Northern Blvd. by use of an access easement. <br />Mr. Berryhill, Developers Diversified, explained that this is to request a lot <br />split of the remaining 25 acres of parcel number 1 which was created wi.th the <br />last lot split which was approved in April of 1990. There will be 3 lots: a 13 <br />5