Laserfiche WebLink
,( <br />engineer stated there is a dry type, above ground, retention system at the north east corner of the <br />property. He noted this type of retention was chosen as an alternative to undergrouud retentiou <br />as he could not gravity flow to the Clague Road sewers due to the shallowness of that system. <br />Mr. Tallon suggested rnnning the retention into the Brookpark Road system. Mr. Crawl <br />identified the nearest area he could connect to that system, which he noted was a considerable <br />run. Mr. Tallon elaborated the retention should be underground and pumped to Brookpark <br />Road. Mr. Crawl argued that type of retention would create a maintenance problem. Mr. <br />Brennan noted the mosquitoes, an above ground system will attract, are also going to cause a <br />problem. Mr. Tallon maintained there is no reason tlie request for u.nderground retention could <br />not be accommodated and questioned if the city engineer had any opinions on this alternative. <br />Mr. Deiclunann explained the retention ordinance does permit open retention only in inulti- <br />family, however, it does not allow for a dry basin, but permits a wetland with an aeration system <br />He stated `Vater Tower Square" has a pumping system because they were below the gravity <br />outlet. Mr. Crawl noted "Castle Pines" has an exterior open retention program. Mr. Deiclunann <br />advised "Castle Pines" has a proposed open retention pond in conjunction with Metroparks <br />which has not gone through at this time. It was also uuknown if the developer for "Castle Pines" <br />has received permission from the Metroparks to go .through with the proposed retention. Mr. <br />Crawl coufirmed he was willing to accommodate the cities ordinance by utilizuig an aeratiou <br />system. Mr. Tallon advised this commission will recommend underground retention at tlus site <br />either to Brookpark Road or a lift station to Clague Road. Mr. Brennan questioned if there were <br />any wetlands concerns with this site. Mr. Bower advised he had a wetlands study coinpleted <br />previously and at that time it was concluded that this is not a wetlands area. Mr. Tallon opened <br />discussion up for audience participation. Mr. Nicola, an abutting property owner, stated he was <br />not notified of this meeting. After checking the records it was found there was a mistake in the <br />notification. Assistant Law Director Dubelko suggested that the commission table this proposal <br />so that proper notification can be given before any action is taken by the planning commission. <br />Mr. Nicola questioned if his name was intentionally omitted and Mr. Tallon advised it was merely <br />an oversight. The commission requested that the clerk check all addresses for the next <br />notification to ensure that everyone is properly notified. Mr. Tallon invited the audience <br />members up to take a look at the plan. 'Mr. Vannoy, a concerned resident, noted in nursing <br />homes certain people that require assistance are also dependent on Medicaid. He questioned if <br />these ind.ividuals would be separated from those not dependent on Medicaid. Mr. O'Neil advised <br />this facility will not be licensed as a nursing home, but will be licensed as a residential care <br />facility. He elaborated Medicaid does not pay for any residential care facilities at this time. Mr. <br />O'Neil further explained if a facility is permitted to sign on for Medicaid reimbursement, all the <br />beds have to be signed on for Medicaid. He noted the idea of moving people around because of <br />Medicaid is forbidden by the state. Mr. Tallon questioned if someone is short on funds, if they <br />would be referred elsewhere. Mr. O'Neil explained, his employees are trained to know the <br />services and clifferent facilities in the area, and can refer people to another facility if needed. <br />There were no further questions. <br />R. Tallon motioned to table the proposal for Wellington Place (Assisted Living) until the next <br />plauuing commission meeting at which time proper notification should be given to all the <br />surrounding residents and in the mean time the commission would like the developer to take back <br />with them the input the commission had today especially looking at: the mauner in which the <br />tower can be lowered; the undergrou.nd retention; and the landscaping. The motion was <br />seconded by T. Brennan and unanimously approved. <br />5