Safety – more parking is less safe. I don’t understand the logic of this improves safety. Concentration of surface parking can not be a safety improvement. Concentration is bad, and the only way I would support uber concentration is via a limited access deck. As a parent, I want to decentralize parking, for instance reopening West St south of Wooster.
Trees - We will lose >10 18" or greater trees. As planned, we will lose both heritage oaks on West. We are fair weather fans – the minute a tree is inconvenient, we eliminate it. “Gum Trees drop bad, slippery fruit”. “They’re not street trees”. These are two arguments you’ll hear. That’s fine, then what’s our plan to plant this species off street (I’m assuming they’re originally part of the Nolen plan). And what’s our plan to plant a more desireable tree in between the less desireable ones, so that we have a few years of maturity before tearing down? Ginko trees near the tennis courts have awful, rotten smelling fruit. Deciduous trees drop their leaves EVERY year. Where does it end? We live in a place that is defined by trees, that benefits from trees, and I’d like to see more loyalty to them.
Cost – this will cost the Village $200,000 when all is said and done. The Village, which has run deficits for each of the past 3-4 years has other priorities.
Government Involvement – should the Village play mediator to this dispute? It seems better handled by the property owners.
Environmental – parking lots are heat sinks in the summer and have storm runoff issues. We will see congestion jump during business hours as cars jockey for spaces. I’ll take lawn over parking any day.
Process – we conducted a feasibility study for 11 spaces in 2006. We conducted a needs assessment in 2001 which has been mothballed. How many spaces do we need in the Village? How far away from the Square should they be? We have no architectural/planner point of view. We are jumping right to Engineering drawings. Engineers (I am one) are great at efficiency and yield, not livability, not appropriateness. Finally, why is this not part of the MPF Vision Plan?
Urban Planning - Surface parking is a failure of Planning. We need more parking. Don’t think lateral, think vertical. We need a deck in the Village to not waste our precious/small acreage
Aesthetic – we are designing a sprawling Parking lot. Trees (really little ones that won’t mature during our lifetimes) will help, diagonal will help. But it’s still a parking lot.
Pedestrianism – Sidewalks are at the “discretion of the Owner”. Does this mean we might not have them? How do bicycles navigate a street like this? Are they permitted to ride on the sidewalk, assuming it exists?
Nolen Plan – this may very well be the biggest change ever to the Nolen Plan. It doesn’t feel at all historically appropriate. Shouldn’t it warrant careful consideration, expert opinion, and lots of input?
Street Parking – we could paint parking spots on Madisonville Rd and for cost of materials, we could have up to 38 parking spaces. West Street had parallel parking until 2006 – why not re add them? Why not search out every opportunistic spot FIRST.
Cortney
My drawing of real impact to the street
Initial drawing done by the Village
No comments:
Post a Comment