08/09/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

detention area. He suggested that the only area which would be near the pond area were units 40 & 41 and a very small shallow area behind units 20 through 23 and that area is only a foot deep at the tiighest. Mr. Yager indicated that he was concerned with units 17, 18, & 19. Mr. Urbanick suggested there was no detention area behind those units they were just slopes coming off the buildings. Mr. Durbin commented that the patios are encroaching into the drainage-ways behind the buildings, they must have a drainage swell between the property line and the building to keep water from draining onto abutting property that is what the applicants are encroaching on and that area could be wet all the time. Mr. Urbanick indicated that there would be a drain between every other building. Mrs. Hoff-Smith advised the applicant that all units by code are required to have a second egress, which would require a man-door or patio-door both of which would require either a patio or steps, which means the slope is still an issue. Mr. Conway confirmed that two ways out were required by code. Mr. Koeth questioned what type of neighborhood amenities were looked at as none were shown on the plans and the planner had discussed possible green-space or common areas. Mr. Ricco suggested that there had been changes made to the plan over the last year in the area of the creek. He believes that in moving forward it would be their intent to create some value by adding in some landscaping details, benches or anything that would create some presence and if they see an opportunity to do some of that they would look for that he thinks. Mr. Urbanick suggested that on both sides of the road the landscaping plan is near the creek itself where there is some space between units and shows the landscape islands. Resident Comments: Mr. Bohlmann with the Barton Woods Association indicated that while submitted plans state that utilities may be underground, the city codes require that all utilities must be under ground. He questioned if the ponds would retain water at all times or only when there was a rain storm. Mr. Durbin indicated that the pond 'must be drained out. If the detention basin had standing water by code it would require the water be irrigated and fenced in. He recalled that a year ago the developer agreed to concrete streets and full curbs, yet on plan page 15 the road is shown as an asphalt street. The North Olmsted city codes require all major and minor subdivisions have barrier curbs and concrete streets. The city engineer would have to recommend an asphalt street to council and then council as a whole would have to pass that recommendation. He would like to know the applicant's intent. Mr. Urbanick suggested that they would have no problem placing all utilities underground and suggested it was simply an error on the plan. The proposed ponds would be completely dry and there is landscaping proposed around the perimeter and the bottom of the basin would be seeded with grass and will be mowed. The pond would fill up with water during heavier rains and are required to hold water for a 24 to 48 hour period. The depth of the water is approximately 4-feet. Side slopes again on the pond are 3 to 1 not being a sharp drop off. Concrete versus asphalt the issue was addressed at the last meeting and they believe it was very clear that Planning Commission wanted a pavement section that had an asphalt surface to somewhat satisfy the developer but a much thicker concrete base to satisfy the city engineers office. They showed both on the plans meaning they have the option of doing both. If they do the concrete it would be per city requirements and if they do the asphalt surface with concrete base it is per Planning Commission and both require a 6-inch concrete barrier curbs so the curbs will meet city codes. Mr. Bohlmann asked for clarification as to whether or not the applicant was suggesting the curbs and gutters would be concrete and the street asphalt or did the applicant mean there would be a 7