09/12/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( . rejected on the basis ofhealth and safety issues since it had been brought up that a young boy had drowned in a retention pond in Westlake. Mr. Mauuiug noted that that was a pond, not what is being proposed now. Mr. Miller stated that there was an article in the Plain Dealer regarding damp basements which resulted in the death of some children on the east side. He maintained that when this basin filled up, it would be a safety concern. He believed that the system could be put underground and the land used for playing fields. Service Director Bolilmauu stated that the city cannot make a developer exceed what is required by ordinance in an underground retention system, but what is presented here would exceed what would be required u.ndergrou.nd. If above ground retention is allowed, it should be calculated to exceed what is required for underground. There is problem in the area which will be helped with the new box culverts that are being installed on Clague Road, but with the type of rains that fell in June and Ju1y, additional retention is needed, and this concept might help the situation. Even though he is not normally in favor of above grou.ud situation, he believed that under these circumstances this should be studied further. He requested that the proposal be continued so that he and the City Engineer can study this further and discuss it with the developer. He believed that the concrete channel would be a plus and felt the slope could be changed slightly to be more effective. Mr. Brennan asked if they could do a calculation based upon the entire project in order to get a more complete picture. Mr. Bohlinann explained that the Rice ditch and the Coe ditch converge at LeBern Road and they handle almost all the water from Columbia Road to the Fairview line. Mr. Herbster would like to know the capacity of the above ground retention versus the capacity of the below grou.nd. Mr. Bolilmauu explained that if underground retention is installed it would empty into Rice ditch. He also explained how the water would be managed with the new box culverts. In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Dubelko advised that city could only require a developer to install retention to comply with code, no more. Mr. Miller assumed that the developer would only construct retention that would conform to above ground or below ground since the city cannot make them install more. Mr. Wlutlatch advised that they could voluutarily contract with the city to install more. He pointed out that they only show 7 lots on 5 acres of ground when normally they could construct more in order to accommodate a large retention area. He believed that this would be a win situation for both the city and for them and if it were not, he would not expect the city to approve it. There are badly engineered above ground systems, but they believe that this is designed to be attractive, so it will not be a nuisance, and will help solve down stream flooding. He concluded his explanation by stating that they would be glad to preseut additional information showing the capacity of u.nderground storage versus the capacity of the proposed basin. W. Tallon stated that when they show the underground capacity, that it should be calculated with the additional houses that will built. The developers agreed. Mr. Basalla stated that they would commit to building something that would be above normal. R. Tallon moved to continue the Bridgeport Subdivision (No.2) for Whitlatch and Company preliminary pian, with the comparisons submitted to the Engineering Department before the next meeting. The motion was seconded by T. Brenuan, and unanimously approved. During the framing of the motion, Mr. Lowe, a resident, stated that the neighborhood had significant water problems all of which had been discussed at previous meetings. He did not care if there was above ground or below ground retention, he just asked that something be done about them He is also concerned extending Maple Ridge to West 231st since they have considerable tra?'ic on the street now. He mentioned that some of this property had been cleared and he had no idea that something was going in on Lorain Road. It was explained to him how these proposals went through the city and that he would be notified again for the final plans. Mrs. Spaulding objected because none of the engineering would be shown when this comes back. She does not believe that the city can decide on this until they can study the full picture. 4) Great Northern Properties Company Lot Split Plat. The proposal is to subdivide Permauent Parcel No. 236-17-4, location on the south side of Country Club Blvd. and east of Great Northem Blvd. (including the site of the proposed Lone Star Restaurant) into three 7