06/21/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 6-21-99 Page 7 Mr. Bialosky showed the drawing. Mayor Rinker said we have generally recommended and understand that consistent with our ordinances the parking lot layout that Progressive has demonstrated is fully conforming to our code. The biggest concern we had was the boundary--and initially we were looking for ways to soften that- -we were trying to unite the structural function of having to provide a berm along a parking lot in the area as well as for us to utilize that azea to berm the wetland. In fact we would shi$ the berm, the barrier between the two because it would require less area to cut trees in. The potential downside to be resolved is just where the path might lie. We have also had discussions about whether we could bring the trail to the interior. One of the concerns we had was that if we would have a foot trail in that area that it might cause damage to #he wetland area. The bottom Iine is that we might be able to put a more extensive boardwalk in the area. Mayor Rinker said he had indicated his recommendation to Council would be to hold off on a boardwalk of any kind this year and revisit it for the following year, it will give us a chance to look at the grant monies and other funding sources. It also gives us a chance to explore it more and look for incentive programs for people in the community. He understands from an engineering standpoint, maybe making a common barrier would be good. Mr. Bill Bialoksy said what we are doing with the drainage on our site is we are taking all of the water from this curb line up through this waterway system (he pointed to the spot on the map)that is basically changing the drainage as it works today--today an area of this parking lot that is now trees flows to the Village's wetland. In order to make the flow go that way, we have to take the edge of the parking lot up. In looking at it, we realized we will have to take out more of the trees on their lot line than we would like to do. To stay as tight as we can to the lot line, we will take a minimum of 10' of trees on that lot, or maybe even more. When we studied the Village's design for the retention basin, we realized the Village is also requiring to build a berm along this edge that will take out 50'- 60' of trees. We will end up with a tiny neck of trees. The solution they are proposing is to eliminate the Village's piece of this berm, and to let the edge they are creating with the parking lot serve the purpose. By tying the dike into the edge of the parking lot, we feel we will preserve the greatest quantity of trees for everyone. We know that Progressive is very sensitive about the path following with the berm. They don't want the path coming onto their property. They would like it away from the edge as a security issue. They want people coming and going from the Progressive campus to the Village's wetland area to use the front walk. They don't want this to become a back- door sort of entry for safety and security issues. Mayor Rinker wondered ultimately how much people will cut through there; he thinks it is a non- issue. Mr. Bill Bialosky said we know people will walk where they want to. We met with Tom Forrester today and have an agreement in principal for this idea--both Tom Evans of URS (representing Mayfield Village) and Don Sheehy of Chagrin Valley Engineering (representing Progressive) ha.ve discussed this and feel it is very feasible and sensible to cut down the least number of trees and preser-ve the maximum amount of green space. If we eliminate the swale area that is redundant along the property lines, we think it is a win-win situation.