10/09/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which approved this proposal originally which stated "...builders have agreed to work out something suitable with the Engineering Department after being advised of the city's policy with respect to retention..." and further a part of the motion which stated "retention will be consistent with the ordinances of the City of North Olmsted". Building Commissioner Conway advised that if a lake is installed, a fence would be required surrounding it. The developers will look into a fence, but if they determine that it would be detrimental to the appearance of the project, they can appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. During this discussion, Mr. Dubelko was researching the codes, and suggested that - perhaps someone interpreted Section 1353.08, entitled Water Accinnulation, that deals with accumulating surfaee water which may become a public nuisance. He would not consider that the intent of this ordinance would be to prohibit open retention, and believed that this should be referred to the Engineering Department to determine if this system is adequate. Councilman Tallon advised that, in the past, the Law Department had used that specific section to prevent above ground retention, and further that the engineering policy has been underground retention. Mr. Dubelko stated that he was not familiar with any such ruling in the last 11 years, but agreed that policy was underground retention. Mr. Cammerata believes that the 5 year retention that North 0]msted requires is inadequate, and prefers not to build something that will be flooded out. Mr. Thomas stated that this should not be a problem if he explains his criteria to. the Council. Mr.. MeDermott clarified that the standard has been a 10 year storm, not 5 years. Mr. Deichmann stated that when the water feature was approved, in essence, above ground storage capacity was being approved since it would be there. Mr. Gorris is concerned that another developer might want propose above ground retention which would not be integrated with the plans. Mr. Tallon stated that when this was approved, it was approved as a signature feature, not as retention. He also questioned if this should not have gone to CoLmciT first. Mr. Dubelko stated that any issue that was dictated by the court settlement had to go through normal procedures, first through Planning Commission then through Council. It was clarified that dumpsters would be screened with landscaping, the exact rnunber was not available; that the security gate would be maiuied during the da.y, and would 'be card operated at night; the number of tmits will remain the same, but the ratio of one bedrooan units to two bedroom units has changed; and the access will still be off Great Northern Boulevard. Mr. Cepic, a neighbor, was advised that the traffic survey had been presented previously and would be available in the Engineering Department. Mr. Berryhill, Developers Diversified, advised that it had .. been determined by Traff-Pro that signalization was not_justified coming into the multi-family, but signalization would probably be justified at the entrance to the office/hotel area. It was also noted that a variance was granted for the height of the steeples. Mr. Dubelko stated that he would check with the Law Director regarding any ruling pertaining to above ground retention. B. Gorris moved that the Steeple Walk Apartments, property located south of I-480, west of S.R. 252, and north of lots facing Butternut Ridge Road be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for their input, at the same time the Law Department will render an interpretation as it relates to above ground retention, seconded by J. Thomas. Roll call on motion: Gorris, Thomas, Betts, Bierman, Bowen, and Morgan, yes. Mr. Orlowski, abstained. Motion 7