Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lyons an abutting neighbor from the rear questioned who would own and maintain the land <br />from the detention basin to the otlier side of the existing creek. He further questioned why the <br />trees beyond and around the creek are being removed and once the area was cleared who would <br />be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Howard advised that they would only remove those trees <br />that needed to be reuaoved and it would be up to each homeowner to maintain his/her own land. <br />Mr. O'Malley wished to clarify that a residential property owner by code has the right to remove <br />any trees they wanted to on their land. However, the applicant subYnitted a tree survey to the <br />commission relative to the applicant's intention for the existing trees on the site. Therefore, it is <br />up to the commission to review the survey and make recommendations relative to the trees being <br />rerxioved. He sited as an example the area designated as the detention basin and how it would <br />have to be cleared to create the basin. Mrs. Hoff-Smith believed that the 25 foot area in question <br />should be cleaned, remain in a naturat sta.te and be maintained by the individual homeowners or <br />the association. Mr. Howard advised that before the final plat was submitted there would be a <br />copy of the homeowners associations bylaws submitted for approval. He suggested that past <br />practice had been for the association to have the detention areas mowed two or three times a <br />yeaz. <br />Mr. Lucas questioned when construction of the site would start and requested the site be mowed <br />as the grass was getting quite high. Mr. Howatd sta.ted that they would not start construction <br />until they received final approval. Mr. Bohlmann advised that city codes regulated a11 land <br />owners maintain their grounds and grass is not allowed to grow over 8 inches high. Therefore, <br />the applicants comment regarding mowing the detention area two or three times a year would not <br />comply with North Olmsted Codes. <br />Mr. Lyons questioned the regulations regarding existing naiural wildlife living on the site. Mr. <br />O'Malley did not think natural wildlife and things of that nature were covered under city codes. <br />However, tlie property owners have a separate obligation to follow ODNR and EPA with respect <br />to their regulations pertaining to natural wildlife. <br />Mr. Yager questioned if the applicant addrcssed the neighbors across the street from the main <br />entrance to ensure headiighis from vehicles leaving the site wouldn't directly be shining into the <br />resident's windows. lOils. Wenger advised that issues such as those should be addressed between <br />the applicant and private homeowners outside city meetings. Mr. Yager believed it was the <br />responsibility of the Planning Commission to take into consideration the adverse impact any <br />proposal could have on a11 abutting neighbors including those directly across the street or in line <br />with the egress of the site. He believed that the homeowner directly in line with the proposed <br />curb cut would in fact be adversely impacteti by the proposed development. There needs to be <br />some type of landscaping given to the homeowner to safeguard or protect the value of his/her <br />home, which is being impacted by the proposed development. Mr. O'Malley suggested that <br />Planning Coffimission had reached out to compel the develoger to work with the abutting <br />homeowners to buffer neighboriaig homes and address neighbors concerns. However, Pla.nming <br />Commissions authority was limited in demanding or compelling a developer to address off site <br />issues was limited. Planning Commission is restricted to addressing directly abutting lots, and <br />within the site dealing with light pollution, tree preservation, ingress/egress, landscaping issues <br />and other adverse unpacts but did not believe it included intersecting streets. Mr. Yager felt that <br />as the city was allowing a curb cut ofFthe applicant's site onto a city street the existing neighbors <br />should be taken into consideration. Mr. Spalding agreed with Mr. Yager that there was a <br />legitimate concern for #he homeowner directly in line with the main entrance to the site. The <br />commission strongly recommended the developer meet and work with the homeowner to address <br />the adverse impact on his/her home. <br />3