Laserfiche WebLink
Greenland Consulting came forwazd to address the slopes. He said the slopes are 3:1. It is the <br />builder's intention that the homeowners have the option of choosing patios or low rise decks. <br />All units have between 10-20 feet designated for a patio area. The units that aze adjacent to the <br />pond have elevations fhat will be 3p/ -5' above the liighest water levei ofpond. These are <br />designed for a 100 year storm. The highest water level is 4' below the finished floor of the unit. <br />Based on a 100 year storm, the highest the water level can get where the units aze adjacent to the <br />pond is 12' away. Even though the siope comes up against the building, the aciual area of the <br />pond is not against the building. Swales will be behind the building and the intention is to create <br />positive drainage. Every other unit will have a yazd drain behind the unit. Mr. Durbm said <br />previous plans showed a 6' flat area and now the plan does not show a flat azea. Mr. Lasko said <br />some units may never sell because of the risk of a steep drop off. The applicant understauds that <br />fliere may be some units that are not as desirable due to the layout. Mr. Ricco siressed the fact <br />that the City/developer/builder aze trying to accomplish the same thing and have a product that is <br />ma.rketable to the community. <br />Ms. Hoff-Smith questioned Mr. Durbin about dry detention ponds and slopes. Mr. DurbinTs has <br />no issues with the 3:1 slope but bringing the slope up to the bui2ding will be a problem. <br />Possibly, eliminating one unit may help in the configmation. Mr. Conaway inquired about <br />exterior maintenance of the building and was told it will be the responsibility of the association- <br />gIeidi Sedan, who represents the builder came forward and said this is an unusual condominium <br />development. Typically, the homeowners association is responsibie for the exterior of the units; <br />however, in this case, the exterior is the responsibility of the individuai unit owners. Eaeh nnit <br />will share a limited common element sunounding the unit that will include decorative patio and <br />yard area. Each individual owner wiii be responsible for their area. <br />Ms. Hoff-Smith questioned how far the lighting is placed from the gnest parldng near units 29 <br />and 30. The applicant said the spacing was based on recommendations from the local power <br />company, But agreed to make an adjustment if necessary. <br />Mr. Ricco stated that he understands that the Commission vaices no objection to the 3:2 slopesT <br />but only that some are too close to the units. Mr. O'Malley informed the applicant fihat he <br />distincdy fieard objections ta this. The applicant wants to clarify and define the issues and work <br />together on the goals to build something good for the community and is saYeable. Mr. O'Ma11ey <br />encouraged the developer to address the number of lots and configuration of the lots that border <br />the creek so the proposal can move onto Council. <br />Resident Comments: <br />Mary Bacik, a Barton Road resident, has attended numerous meetiags and asked why this builder <br />is coming from Perry to build here in North Olmsted. She said this builder has a number of <br />problems cannot be solved, as weii as pending lawsuits. <br />Joanne Sheridan, a Barton Road resident came forward and questioned about the tapping into the <br />sewer lines, and is concemed about the overIlow of water into their azea. The area between the <br />fwo deveiopments is small. Another concem is the slowness of traffic when fraveling down