11/14/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ti residential. Mr. Tallon suggested looking into the possibility of purchasing more land for additional access. Mr. Zwick suggested that Mr. Gibble has indicated that he is not interested in changing his land. Mr. Koeth believed that if they accommodate this current proposal it will create problems. He questioned if the applicant looked at zoning A residential. The Block A in the front could be used for homes and the Block B could be used for the above ground retention system. Mr. Zwick indicated that he thought about that but the land drains to the north not the south. Mr. Tallon indicated that the applicant needed to address making the retention system an underground system. Right now the board is looking at this and saying that it is not a good plan. Mr. Zwick suggested that the land was limited to how it could be laid out. The fire department would like the water line to be on a bridge system not a dead end type. Mr. Asseff questioned what the difference was between A, B, and C lots. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that A lots are 80 feet wide, B is 70 feet and C is 60 feet wide. Mr. Gibble, a neighbor suggested that he was open to selling his land. There will still be a water problem if this is allowed. Mr. Tallon commented that as it was stated at the last meeting, the owner will have to maintain the water on his or her own land. Mr. Gibble believed that that would be impossible for the developer to do. Mr. Deichmann suggested that was the reason for the retention system. It creates a space to hold the water so that is it is released at a slow rate so the peek flow does not increase as a result of the development. The neighbor is correct observing that the pavement will increase the runoff, but the retention system keeps the water and will only allow the water to release at a slow rate. Mr. Gibble questioned if the retention system would be moon shaped. Mr. Deichmann suggested that an above ground system would have a dry level water amount and then during a storm that amount would increase. The City of North Olmsted does not encourage above ground retention systems. Most of the retention systems, which have been added in the City over the past 10 years, are mostly underground. Mr. Gibble suggested that he did not have a problem if the City guaranteed that there would not be any flooding caused by the development of the parcel. He would like to see the blue prints for the retention system that will be built. Mr. Deichmann indicated that the applicants currently show an above ground retention system or lake if you will. The City does not look favorably at aboveground water retention. Mr. Tallon reviewed what the City Engineer was trying to explain to the neighbor, however he was not satisfied with what he was being told. Mr. Deichmann commented that the city requires the owner to keep back 10% more water then what is now flowing. Mr. Tallon remarked that all the board could do is say that the undera ound retention systems in North Olmsted work well. Mr. Koeth commented that as Mr. Tallon has indicated the City does not look favorably at above ground systems and that is all that can be said for now. Mr. Tallon indicated that the forester submitted a report and the board would like the applicants to follow the forester's suggestions. R. Tallon motioned to table Cinnamon Lake Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. The proposal is to subdivide permanent parcel No. 264-07-025 (recently annexed), located south of Cook Road and east of Bronson Road, into forty four (44) B-Residential sublots and two (2) Remnant blocks until meeting next. The board would like some new ideas to look at. The motion was seconded by, W. Spalding and unanimously approved. Motion Carraed. 2. Cinnamon Lake Subdivision: Rezoning Request. The proposal is to Re-Zone permanent parcel No. 264-07-025, located south off Cook Road and east of Bronson Road, to B-Residence, Single entirely, to accommodate the proposed subdivision (as noted in item 1, this agenda). Note: this proposal was tabled at the Planning Commission meeting dated October 24, 2000 6