07/12/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

recommended. She noted that the shift was accomplished without moving the detention areas closer or furttaer in the building envelope of the impacted iots. , City Engineer Durbin reported that a letter dated July 5, 2005, was sent to the applicant addressing 6 items 2 of which were minor. The stoxan water sewer and sanitary easements are still needed. A 12 inch minimum culvert at each driveway entrance is required and needs to be shown on their plans. Applicants vvere also notified of the future plaris to widen Stearns Road and that the County could have issues which would need to be addressed. The applicants were also advised that the entrance profile could not be any more than 5% onto Stearns Road. Mr. Bohlmann noted that the emgineer's letter stated the City needed to be provided easements to maintaiai the detention area, but at the last meeting the applicants stated there vvould be a homeowners association. Mr. Durbin advised that if there is to be a homeowners association, it is not noted on any plans received and the plans require a notation of a double easement for the hoffieowners association and the City of North Olmsted. Mr. Bohlmann admittedly voiced that he was against the detention basin being given to the city to maintain. He did not believe the City should be plaeed in a position to be liable to mairitain private developments detention basins and right-of-ways. He referenced the Deerfield development in which the City ended up inheriting when the associatson faltered on tlle coffianon grounds and detention basin. The city had to fix and maintain the land until it was sold. Tlie city fixed and continues to maintain the detention basin today. In the end the City Iost and continues to lose money maintaining the above ground detention basin. He reeommended the city not take part or be responsible for any part of the aboee ground detention system being proposed. He believed that if an underground detention basin was constructed there would be no need foY the City easeffient and could prevent fiature problems. Mr. Yager believed that if in fact there was a homeowners association they would be liable to maintain the detention basin and if the association faltered it would then be the responsibility of the homeowners of; S/L - 4, S/L - 5, S/L - 6, S/L - 7, and S/L - 8 to maintain as tlne subdivision is zoned single family resideniaal. 1he majority of tlbe cofmmissioners felt that as the EPA preferred above ground detention basins and the proposed detention basin was within code it was aceeptable. Mr. O'Malley advised that if a homeowners association is in fact being proposed it should be cleatly reflected on the owner's final plat submitted and the docuYnents crea.ting the homeowners association should be submitted for review by the cfty as required by code. He believed that Mr. Bohlmann's concerns were justified and explained that city easements are a requirement of city codes in an effort to preserve the cities ability to protect the public right-of-way in the event it is not properly anaintained. He recommended the commission require the applicant to clearly indicate on the plat that there was in fact a homeowners association as 1VIr. Howard had stated and request the association bylaws be submitted. He further suggested that the plat clearly state the association would be responsible for maintaining the detention basins. The plat should also show deed restrictions holding all new and future owners to participation in the homeowners association. Mr. Bohimann commented that although it is the owner's discretion as to which type of detention basin to use, he believed the decision to use an above ground detention system vvas solely based on the aanount of money the applicant could save. He asked City Engineer Durbin's professional preference for the site pertaining to above or below ground detention. Mr. Durbin advised that he thought both an above a.nd underground detention basin shouid be used. Mr. Bohlmann stated that although he respected his fellow Commissioners and the City Engineers opinions he believed an underground detention basin was be#ter and if the city allowed the above grouud detention basin in the long run it would end up another burden placed upon the city to deal with. 2