06/11/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bohlmann questioned if the applicant was prepared to answer the questions listed in Mr. DeGroot's May 27, 2008 memo and if the letter submitted by the developer was acceptable as the letter was not from any land owners. Mr. O'Malley said the actual property owners should verify that the developer has the authority to present a proposal for their property. He noted that it was not unusual for land acquisitions to be subject to development approval. Mr. Liggett said the elevations and engineering plans were updated to reflect the changes shown on page SK 4. The plans show the landscape changes including the 40 foot swale requested. The association rules were discussed a couple of times with an understanding that once the city received the documents they would provide a list of stipulations or concerns which needed to be addressed. The easements for electrical and utilities are in place and will be addressed by the engineer. Mr. Zwiclc said the plan he submitted was an updated engineering drawing clarifying items requested since November 2007. The letter from Mr. DeGroot says the items listed are questions not opinions. Items 5 and 7 are moot as 5 is shown on the drawing and 7 is the report submitted and mentioned by the city engineer. Item 6 references the existing sanitary sewer which crosses the sites property through an easement. It is beyond his scope to perform the hydraulic study which is suggested. The affect of the proposed development connecting to the sewer pipe is miniscule considering the trunk line serves all of southern North Olmsted. Mr. Laslco questioned if the scope of the engineering plans were beyond Planning & Design Commission review. Mr. O'Malley said engineering topics related to rezoning would be within the Commission's right to review. Mr. Zwiclc said item 4 regarding homes being built over the sewer pipes, that is not true and all easements will be respected. Item 3 related to the rear yard area showing plantings over the sewer pipe will Ue addressed in final drawings submitted which will not have any plantings over yard drains. Items 1 and 2 are related as the neighboring property owner has alternately stated that he wants a barrier to lceep stormwater off of his property and then that he relies on stoimwater runoff to feed into his pond. Plans show that they are controlling the water runoff from their property in accordance to city codes. The implication of damaging Mr. Crabs' well water is unfounded as the well is deeper than any of their pipe levels. He characterized Mr. DeGroot's letter as speculative. Mr. Zwiclc said that the development would not have sewer baclcup/surcharge problems. Mr. Malone said he was completely satisfied with the landscape plan. Mr. Rerlco said that the applicant has complied with all requests made. Mr. Bohlmann questioned if home 17 was within the rear easement. Mr. Liggett said the home is outside the easement. He also noted that during excavation of homes 17 and 18 they would ensure that the sewer pipes are not at risk and if the pipes are out of place they would be addressed. Mr. Crabs said Mr. Zwick was confusing the aquifer flows with the surface flows and questions in the letter have to do with aquifer flows as his pond is fed from both the surface water and springs flowing from the west. His well is not nearly 50 feet deep and is fed from an underground aquifer. He questioned the landscape buffer along the east which seemed to have landscaping over the stoi-m sewer lines instead of beside the drains and questioned were the 40 feet easeinent was. He believed that any basements in units 19 through 21 would flood as they