Citation in context
March 2, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Sally Cohn commented that the bio-retention basin takes up space where outdoor family fun could otherwise take place and that she sees this getting filled in. She noted that some plantings, two in particular (Holly right outside Master bedroom window & Columnar Maple) may
5 eventually get taken down as they would block sunlight. She stated that they (the landscape architect) did manage to get the replacement caliper inches in. She asked if the home is sold.
Mr. DeBois stated that he did not believe it was sold. He indicated that he would pass along the concerns about those two trees.
Ron Reim asked who inspects the bio-retention basin.
Susan Istenes stated that the owner has to have it inspected and a report provided to the City.
Ron Reim asked if a discussion took place with the neighbors.
Mr. DeBois stated that he has not talked with the neighbors; maybe Mr. Manlin has.
Mark Winings commented that it seems as though the replacement caliper inches are made up of several small trees. He asked for confirmation that the plan meets the City’s regulations.
Louis Clayton stated that the information noted on the application is subject to change once reviewed and that he is correct in that several small trees are replacing a few large trees that are being removed to accommodate construction.
Ron Reim commented that once they get too big, the owner removes them.
Sally Cohn agreed and added that trees suffocate each other and die off.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the applicant if he was okay with the two conditions in staff’s memorandum.
Mr. DeBois replied “yes”.
Being no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for the proposed construction of a 4,564- square-foot single-family residence (excluding the basement) with an attached, rear-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29-feet 7.75-inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The home to the south (227 Lancaster Drive) is an original one-story ranch that is +/- 21.3 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). On December 14, 2014, the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board
trees in the rear yard and the proposed planting for the bio-retention facility, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. DeBois presented the proposed site plan to the members. He stated he was in attendance at this meeting representing Manlin Mehlman.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where water flows; noting that the property slopes to the south.
Mr. DeBois concurred. He stated that water will be captured in the bio-retention area behind the house.
Sally Cohn asked how deep the retention area is and what it consists of.
Mr. DeBois stated that it is a layered system with 2-inches of mulch, 24-inches of bio- media, 6-inches of sand and 6-inches of gravel.
Sally Cohn asked the length and width of the depressed area.
Mr. DeBois stated that there is a ponding depth of 1 foot; it is 65 feet long and 12 feet wide.
Sally Cohn commented that currently it contains no plants and is a large mulched basin.
Mr. DeBois stated that it can be planted; plants would be added toward the end of the review process.
Jim Liberman asked the difference between this (bio-retention area) and a rain garden.
Mr. DeBois stated that a rain garden has more sand and plants. He noted that a bio- retention basin is acceptable per MSD.
Jim Liberman asked about maintenance.
Mr. DeBois stated that they do require maintenance and that MSD typically requires that they get recorded with the County.
Jim Liberman asked what happens if they are not properly maintained.
Mr. DeBois indicated that a bio-retention basin would work less and less over time until it eventually stops working completely. He stated that they are good for several years.
DeBois indicated that a bio-retention basin would work less and less over time until it eventually stops working completely. He stated that they are good for several years.
4 Jim Liberman asked if he checks the system at the end of construction.
Mr. DeBois stated that he would not; most likely the contractor would do that.
Ron Reim asked where the discharge goes.
Mr. DeBois indicated that it flows to the rear left corner of the property ten feet from the property line.
Sally Cohn commented that this is a fairly large pool of water and is unattractive if not properly planted.
Mr. DeBois stated that they’ve agreed to staff’s recommendations; one of them being to provide plantings.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that staff would be reviewing and approving those plantings.
Sally Cohn stated that we (this Commission) need to look at these projects more in depth as there is a lot of discharge going on here and that she does not believe this to be sustainable in the future. She stated that she would like to see all the plantings.
Jim Liberman asked about overflow.
Mr. DeBois stated that this basin can handle a 2-year storm event.
Jim Liberman asked in one year, how many times this could overflow.
Mr. DeBois replied that it could overflow once every two years. He reminded everyone that site (surface) water bypasses the basin.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where driveway water goes.
Mr. DeBois stated that it sheet flows to the south and west as it did before.
Ron Reim asked if it flows onto the neighbor’s property.
Mr. DeBois replied “yes”. He added that there is 8 to 10 foot of drive there and that a silt fence will be in place during construction. He stated that the majority of the cfs increase is house footprint.
Sally Cohn commented that the bio-retention basin takes up space where outdoor family fun could otherwise take place and that she sees this getting filled in. She noted that some plantings, two in particular (Holly right outside Master bedroom window & Columnar Maple) may
The home to the south (227 Lancaster Drive) is an original one-story ranch that is +/- 21.3 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). On December 14, 2014, the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board
6 approved plans for a new home at 227 Lancaster Drive that will be +/- 6.5 feet shorter than the proposed home on the subject property. The home to the north (8318 Kingsbury Boulevard) was constructed in 2001 and is +/- 2.3 feet shorter (as measured from the mid-point of each roof) than the proposed home. According to the applicant, to provide a transition in height and scale between the proposed home and adjacent homes, the following techniques were used:
lot.