26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 2 Streetscape Design (cont.) Related to this is the street sections on page 34 that are incorrect or at best misleading. The document shows a center turn lane but that only happens at key intersections(St. Mary's and Rose). It has a note that says "Typical section, does not represent all cases or dimension.", but the document has chosen the outlier to represent as the typical,versus the other way around. If this were the norm,we would propose that the ability to take some of the width out of the curb to curb dimension and put it in the sidewalks be explored. Put the extra 9' in the non-existent turn lane into the sidewalks. The City could add it to the side of the road where the sidewalks are narrow. The section is also odd in how it represents the "pedestrian/cafe zone" and how it describes the sidewalk area. The overall dimension is the same as the distance between the face of buildings and the curb is not changing. But in the existing, the DPSP chose to dimension a 7-9' pedestrian/cafe zone and a 6' amenity zone. While in the proposed, it shows a dimension of a 9-11' ped/cafe zone and a 4' amenity zone. Doing the math, 7-9' plus 6' equals 13-15'. Same for 9-11' plus 4'. Re-labeling a "zone" is busy work unless the plan is to tear out all the existing improvements like the benches, planters and trash receptacles,which would be a waste of City money. Another oddity, in the effort to move the trees to generate more clear space in the sidewalks, is there are existing street lights basically in line with the existing trees. They can't be moved without major utility work(nor do the sections show them moved). So,width in certain location sis still impeded. The City would lose the parking space,spend the money to move the trees but still does not end up with the desired clear width. At the true pinch points, maybe parking is re-striped and the pinch areas by the trees or street lights could become additional outdoor dining or bike corrals or parkletts. It is not a bad thing to have some unusual areas along the streetscape, making it memorable and providing additional areas for gathering. Parking Management Even though we understand the Task Force was asked not to discuss downtown parking,we feel strongly that without a serious commitment in the DSPD to provide a parking structure,or specific plans for substantial additional public parking in the downtown core,the downtown will continue to stagnate, as it has for several years. There needs to be an improved in lieu parking program that allows additional public parking to be translated into increased building space in the downtown core,without which there will be no increased vitality. MP-P.52: We do not support the prohibition of reserving spaces for commercial businesses on private lots. Since there is already a shortage of parking downtown, making it more difficult for commercial businesses to reserve parking for their employees and customers would be counterproductive. MP-P.54: We understand it is a City Council policy to oppose any parking meters on downtown streets, but we question why this needs to be included in the zoning document. Even though the City has made efforts to provide more parking downtown,we believe more is needed, especially in the downtown core. Furthermore,the DSPD's vision will not be reached since new development will not occur unless more parking becomes available. Land Use and Design Implementation Programs LD-1.18: Clarifying, revising and refining the guidelines for context sensitive infill is certainly needed. They should be written so they are flexible, supportive and encourage infill projects so that developers are more inclined to consider these types of projects.