01/10/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Becker that the storm water requirements were changed 9 years ago and requires a larger storm water system. He advised that his entire lot had at least a 20 foot depth of sand and the water on the site did not filter into the catch basin, as it leaks out of the joints of the pipes and just peculates into the sand. He suggested.that the existing detention basin has never held more than 2-feet of water. The existing outlet from his site which connects to the storm sewer in the street has always been plugged since it was installed as it was clogged from derby such as leaves and brush right away and he has never cleared it out. He suggested that the existing pipe which connects to a 10 inch pipe along Lorain Road should just be eliminated as he is retaining all of his water runoff on his site. The City Engineering Department is requesting an additional 668 cubic square feet of pipe for drainage be placed under his existing parking lot. He would like to use the existing concrete parking lot as a retention system if it is ever needed. Commissions comments: The board requested a storm water retention plan be submitted showing what the applicant was requesting to do as the current plans did not show storm water requirements or any other form of calculations. Discussion pertaining to the rear yaxd fence ensued. Some commissioners felt that a rear fence was not warranted others felt that it was a safety concern for the elementary school which is located right behind the site. The commission requested a report from the safety department and asked that the school authorities be contacted to give their comments regarding their opinion of a fence. Ms. Wenger advised that the Crocker Stearns project would have a significant impact on the site and she is concerned that the current plans as shown do not accurately reflect the turning radius onto the site, nor the proper relocation of the existing ground sign. Mr. Yager questioned if the applicants ground sign could be placed within the temporary easement area once the project is completed as that is were it seemed to be shown on the current plans. Mr. Boss advised that he would place the ground sign how ever the commission wanted. Mr. Lasko advised that the new plans should reflect storm water detention as well as the proper placement of the ground sign, landscape bed around the sign and the accurate radius of the entrance. Mr. Bohlmann asked if the applicant would be willing to install an irrigation system on the site and questioned if he would be using brick pavers or stamped concrete pavers along the front of the site. Mr. Boss advised that he did not feel an irrigation system was warranted and the existing brick pavers are to be reinstalled by the State upon completion of the expansion. The commission requested that the applicant enclose the dumpster area to aesthetically improve the area. Mr. Malone reviewed that he visited the site and found that the existing plants were growing and surviving without an irrigation system and any new plants added should be maintained in the same manner. The Austrian pines along the west side of the driveway are overgrown and should be pruned and thinned out at the least. They preferably should be replaced with lower growing evergreen trees i.e. dwarf white pines or hemlock spaced 20-feet apart with shrubbery in between. The shrubbery should be flowering and thick growing, i.e. weigela, dwarf forsythia. Mr. Boss suggested he only had a 5-foot side yard. Mr. Malone suggested low growing arborvitaes could be used, or more taxus such as used on the west side of the driveway. Regarding rear yard setback variance required, the commission felt that the setback was approved in 1986 and believed there was no reason to not grant the variance once again. Mrs. Meredith questioned if there would be additional lighting for the new buildings either on the building itself or in the parking lot. Mr. Boss indicated that there would be new lights. Ms. Wenger advised that proposed lighting would need to be shown on the plans and a photometric plan submitted. Mrs. Meredith questioned if city codes required the applicant to actually mark