09/13/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. O'Malley advised that while the Commission does not evaluate the engineering aspects of a proposed stormwater system, it should evaluate how the system impacts the site and landscape plan. Mr. Harkless, the project engineer, and Mr. Hefling with Pacific Bells were present to address the Commission. Mr. Harkless advised that it is their intent to follow North Olmsted's stormwater requirements and will do so with the new proposed dry detention system. The existing system is an underground system. If this system is continued to be used based on current codes requiring higher standards, the existing system would have to be doubled in size. Therefore there would be a 15 to 20 foot area along the rear of the site just past the pavement which nothing could be planted but grass due to the additional pipes being added underground. They believe that the proposed dry detention is a more aesthetically pleasing plan. It was their impression that both the underground or above dry detention systems were acceptable to the city therefore that is how they proceeded. A photo of a sample dry detention basin installed in Columbus was presented to the commissioners to give them an idea of what the system would look like installed. Mr. Harkless said the depth of the basin would be 4 to 5 feet deep and would be easier to clean and maintain then an underground system. For property smaller than one acre EPA does not regulate the land. However there will be 3 to 4 inches of gravel along the bottom to help alleviate sediment buildup and more plants added then what was scheduled for on the originally approved plans. Mr. Yager asked if the original underground system would be maintained or removed. Mr. Harkless said the current detention system would be removed. Mr. Yager said that the proposed dry detention system was too large for the site however he felt that a smaller dry detention basin in combination with the existing underground system could be more aesthetically pleasing then what was first approved. Mr. Malone felt that the dry detention basin would damage or kill the existing trees which were to remain as well as those on the abutting property possibly. Mr. Bohlmann questioned where the water would go if the detention basin overflowed and was concerned it would be into the neighbor's yard. Mr. Malone felt that there were other systems which could be used besides a dry basin as proposed. Mr. Harkless believes that the ash and maple trees are in the neighbor's yard and would not be affected. Mr. Malone reviewed that the plan submitted showed that the slope would start less than 10 feet off the rear property line and the roots of the existing trees extend outward quite a bit and would be damaged by the construction. Mr. Harkless advised that either way the underground system would adversely affect existing trees as the pipes would have to be placed 5 feet underground as well and there could be no landscaping in the 15 to 20 foot area. Mr. Malone was not in favor of the above ground detention system being used on the lot as proposed. Mr. O'Malley advised the applicant that they were not at liberty to alter any landscaping plans which had been previously approved even if their request is denied and they have to install an underground system. Therefore the suggestion that being required to install an underground system would still kill the existing trees and erase the previously approved landscape plan is inaccurate as they are not at liberty to make changes. Mr. Bohlmann questioned where the underground systems pipes would be located on the site. Mr. Harkless advised that they would continue to have the underground system in the rear of the site as the pipes could not be placed under the parking lot. Mr. Bohlmann advised that there was nothing in the city's codes which would prohibit the underground system from being placed under the parking lot. He also felt that a dry detention system would become a collecting ground for debris. Councilman 2