5 years ago

9.07.2010 - Village of Deerfield

9.07.2010 - Village of Deerfield


Village Center Development Commission August 4, 2010 Page 4 of 9 not believe the trucks for Kevin’s Place are 62 foot trucks. He noted that a lot of information is being based on 62 foot trucks. Mr. Cooper believes that Kevin’s Place could request smaller trucks because the larger trucks would not work with the traffic pattern. Mr. Dondanville said Kevin’s Place has 2 tractor trailer deliveries per week. Phil Rosborough from Rosborough Partners, Inc. discussed the proposed landscaping plans. He showed some existing photographs, noting that the south side of the lot has a four-foot high planting area. Mr. Rosborough noted the existing hedges are not growing together. He proposes removing the ash trees and burning bush, and keeping the honey locusts and oak. Mr. Rosborough has created two different schemes. The first is a natural scheme that provides a mix of shade trees, ornamental trees, flowering shrubs and ornamental grasses. The second is a linear scheme that is similar to the area by Stoney River. It is more architectural and acts more as a green fence. The plants would be installed at four feet tall and would provide for layers of shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses. He noted that all the planting materials, except the evergreens, were selected because of their tolerance to salt and weather conditions. Mr. Rosborough noted that the continuous 19 foot wide buffer allows for good planting areas and the hedges will do better in that condition. The plants would eventually grow together to form a barrier in both schemes, but the second scheme requires more maintenance and trimming. Ch. Garfield asked about the time required for growth and screening for either landscaping plan and asked if either plan would provide immediate height and screening. Mr. Rosborough explained that the existing plantings are not currently filled in. If the area were filled in, it would create a four-foot tall buffer. Ms. Shaw asked why the existing ground would not be built up to create a berm. Ch. Garfield asked if less planting and a higher berm would work. Mr. Rosborough explained that an 18 inch berm would look okay with planted layers. Mr. Cooper asked if cost is an issue. Mr. Rosborough explained that the initial plan was to use the masses to create subtle berming. Ms. Zobus asked if the existing trees would be kept if the berm was built. Mr. Rosborough explained the honey locust and burning bush could be used with the berm. Ch. Garfield asked about the age of the existing trees. Mr. Rosborough explained they are approximately nine years old and have doubled in size. Ch. Garfield asked about the maintenance plans. Mr. Street explained the Village currently contracts out for the landscaping and that this would be added to the current contract. Ms. Shaw questioned what the Village wants. She asked if the goal was to create a beautiful berm or to just cover up an eyesore from the street with a border of plantings. If the Commission is looking to create a beautiful berm, putting in permanent hedges would be more appropriate. She questioned whether the berm would be permanent or temporary. Ms. Zobus believes a berm would give some perception that there is something there. Mr. Banzuly noted the Village was looking for a temporary solution and concept 1 looks nice. Mr. Cooper said the Commission has always expressed concern about the appearance of the site from the street. Mr. Rosborough noted that a 19 foot landscape buffer zone would appear as a very large space. The Village could 4

Village Center Development Commission August 4, 2010 Page 5 of 9 add stones on the north side of the buffer area. Ch. Garfield asked what the best solution would be to screen the parking lot and make it look pleasant form the street while recognizing this could be a short term plan. Mr. Adler noted the Commission wants to be fiscally responsible. Ms. Reed said that there are now three schemes and asked Mr. Rosborough to provide cost ranges. Mr. Rosborough noted that evergreens are typically more expensive. He explained that the berm would include soil placement and would not create a significant increase to the cost. Ms. Reed believes that something eye-catching, like a flowering tree or perennial, would be just as effective as a berm in all seasons but winter. Mr. Cooper asked if a good, temporary landscape buffer cold be created for $60,000 or less. Mr. Adler said that the vehicles driving by would be going 30 – 40 miles per hour and would not notice the plantings. Ms. Shaw expressed concern about screening in the winter. She believes there should be a consistent, year round screen that is bermed with some interest on the Deerfield Road side of the planting area. The side facing the parking lot can be fairly uniform and the side facing Deerfield Road should have the color and variety. The other commissioners agreed. Ch. Garfield asked the Commission to discuss the plan as a whole, including any suggested changes. Ms. Reed asked whether the Commission would provide a recommendation based on this discussion. Ch. Garfield explained the Commission can approve a plan or ask for changes. Mr. Street would prefer the Commission make a recommendation, but could take more time to consider a portion of the plan. Larry Dondanville, 717 Westgate Road, recommended angled parking to enforce oneway operation for trucks. He believes the two-way angled parking in the middle aisle as shown on Option D will force all traffic from the middle aisle to use the north drive aisle by the Church preschool. He is concerned about trucks having to back into the loading zone; his original design allowed trucks to pull up to the loading zone without backing in. The Commissioners discussed the two striping plans. Ms. Shaw prefers angled parking, so would prefer Option D. She asked that truck deliveries be restricted to specific times so they do not conflict with preschool drop off or pick up. Ms. Shaw expressed concern about the trucks entering and exiting on Robert York Road. If that is the only option, the Village can deal with it three times a week. Ms. Zobus believes Option D is the lesser of the two evils. She does not believe trucks that large should be allowed and questioned how the trucks will get in and out via Robert York Road. Mr. Kaufmann said that the dynamics of the truck movement would be the same with both plans. He sees the difference between the two options as being a difference of 20 parking spaces (which he does not believe is a problem), and determining which is more user friendly. On that basis, he prefers Option D. 5

DLL_Jordan Springs Village Centre Concept Plan.indd - Penrith City ...
Deerfield Point -- Digital Tour Collateral - Stream Realty Partners
Deerfield Glencoe Glenview Highland Park Highwood ... - NSSRA
Downtown Revitalization Plan - Village of Saukville
handbook draft - Village of Olympia Fields
Village Capacity in Maintaining Infrastructure -
BIKE METRA - the Village of Oak Park
Residents And Businesses - Deerfield Township, Ohio
Westgate Partners LLC - the Village of Oak Park
Emergency Planning for Indian Point - Village of Pomona
Grant Proposal for Project Name - Biddestone Village
VIL feb 09 GRID.indd - Tubac Villager
lo res - The Village at Grand Traverse Commons
Hutton Buscel Village Design Statement - North York Moors National ...
April/May Edition - Deerfield Township, Ohio
A park and recreation plan for the village of Steger, Illinois
village voice - Dersingham Parish Council
Summer Brochure- complete - Village of Palos Park, Illinois
Unit 2, Edison Village, Highfields Science Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RF
Belcarra Draft Village Design Statement - Mayo County Council
[PDF] New Ideals in the Planning of Cities, Towns and Villages Download by - John Nolen
Public News For Public Works - Cuyahoga County Department of ...
Master Plan Description - Consultation - Filton
executive management announcement - GTA Consultants
Open cafes and eateries beside the Eastlakes ... - Eastlakes Village