Final design

I received a copy of the final landscaping design PDF Friday from Zina in the Planning Commission click here, or find it at the bottom of the attached documents uploaded to this page. While approved this design seems out of character with the gently sloping grounds as well as the terms of the approval documents. The berms seem unnecessarily large and now the footprint upon the gentle sloping lawn is far larger than the original 35 space lot's proposed needed to create the 'modest berms' specified in the approval documents. My reading and rough calculations show variations in height of the berm above the grade of the adjacent drive and parking lot of from 1 to 5 feet in the design and estimate passenger vehicles as tall as 7.5 feet would be completely obscured some views on adjacent streets, yet not high enough to block the lights in the existing parking lot which are still badly focused at points beyond CRCDS' property. I was naive to imagine high enough to block headlights on passenger vehicles as being 'modest'. I believe there are some serious issues with runoff as well even though, while I felt assured the engineering would be sound it is not simply the water coming down these newly created very steep slopes but some rather large boulders keep popping out as well (see image above). The seeming lack of adherence to the approved plans is very disturbing, and I will be making calls to see what is being done with regards to compliance.

Zina advises:

Now that all the permits have been issued it is in the hands of the code compliance team. You can contact the inspector, Jimmy Scott at 428- 7764, of the Westside Code Compliance Officer, Tom Mann, at 428-6562.

The mass of fill added during the past week while roughly close the bounds defined by the landscape document seems to be exceeding the seeding bounds shown in it's southeast and southwest extension, not just with the erosion.
fill with runoff/garbage images (I witnessed a hard hat wearing individual tossing what looked like a McDonalds sack on the mound Wednesday afternoon, these washout shots confirm similar garbage added to the fill).
The final landscape design documents specifically added a number of existing trees along the north of the back drive as "Existing Plantings to remain" that have been taken down. I see none of the drip line fencing protecting other trees such as the large maple now behind silt fencing, yet last week one breakaway boulder as tall as the silt fence was trapped in the fencing immediately below the tree. I would imagine it could seriously injure such a tree to be struck by one of these boulders so I wonder why it hasn't been protected, but then given the large area filled and reseeded south of the access drive the week following the planning board approval meeting, I am loosing confidence.

Additionally regarding the landscape design provided in the final document: Why is this berm so inconsistent? From a seemingly reasonable ~1.5" above the parking area it shields closest to Trevor Hall before growing to 5' above the drive as it continues at least 30' beyond the specified 70' down the drive from the parking area. It shows a slope as steep and high as that built to contain the large Eastern lot above, but consistently steeper and much longer and shoved out virtually to the limits of the slope and property line, covering both the gentle most walkable slope up this section of the grounds and terminating it's massive slope into a double row of pine trees cutting off a much traveled route around the grounds into a dead end intersection of barriers. And lastly, why would they even bother with the plantings atop this new massive slope? It appears that the black walnut at the end of Summit is to go as well?

Disclaimer: The lift vehicles being fired up and moved around the parking lot this morning shortly after 4:30a.m. may have affected my ability to think clearly

When "it could have been worse..." is the best thing to say

This looks better than reality because the lot outline appears farther away, the intent to level it will make it so you shouldn't actually see the asphalt. from here.

letters are written

link
thanks to all
bill

Parking Lots, trying to stay cool...

OK, so why couldn't they state anything about this 'need' when asked directly for an explanation of the utility of the lot last week?

Dear Summit Drive Neighbors:
As a follow-up to our meeting last Thursday night , we have been studying a number of different options for our client. Given their need for vehicular access to the east end of Eaton Hall we will be presenting the plan that we showed you last Thursday night at Monday night’s Planning Commissiom meeting. I apologize for this late notice, but don’t feel there is a need to meet again as a group.Please feel free to pass this message along to those whom I don’t have contact information for.Thank you
Stephen R. Thompson, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
PROJECT MANAGER
Bergmann Associates

Clock ticking...

Word still coming today on Thursday's potential meeting.
Getting ready for final push, hoping it is not needed. Pam wants you to join an email thread discussion group, send your address to her at, pamela.frame'AT'gmail.com New letter sample just arrived

Tillie and Basil

Taking the ball and going home...

Funny night Thursday, with only a few neighbors showing up until about 5 or more minutes after the start time, I was just a bit nervous as so many people had shared compelling reasons that were keeping them away, but then a large contingent arrived en masse.

The short story is CRCDS-ACS should be rapidly trying to turn around a site plan revision to meet with the neighborhood again this upcoming week. They collected email addresses and will I guess try to help get the word out rather than slowly releasing time and location info the last few days expecting us to handle comunication.

The long story involved some drama during which a proponent of liberal asphalt application, who I will call 'Curveball' took the floor and seemed to threaten that they may just submit the original proposal to the planning board or tear the building down. That's really what I remember but he couldn't have been that irrational I suppose. To be fair, emotional comments came from the opposition, but there was truth to these comments unlike many attempted assertions of needs for the office entrance parking location that receded under questioning.

Finally with a chance to speak, I blathered on stating the obvious, pointing out how all available internet aerial (Google, Zillow, Microsoft live) imagery supports, that people don't seem to park in the East lot at all if spaces are available in the West, and why would they? The West lot is where all of the current campus need is, the only thing convenient to the East lot is Trevor Eaton. I suggested how additional spaces could reasonably be added to the design in which they have already found 20 more of the thirty five spaces (and 51 of the 66 total) that absolutely can't fit up top in the current parking areas. I mentioned a repeated story told about how there wouldn't be space for all of the ACS office workers in the lot down below and that some of the staff would be forced to park up top and walk down, and asked why on earth anyone would want to park down below rather than up top. I provided an illustration showing distance to door convenience of none and only a slight advantage of 7' less elevation change in the lower lot spaces, which is obviously many times offset by the 500'or 700'+ of aisles and drives, 360 to 540 degrees of turning and 24'+ of altitude change required to drive to the lower lot. I also mentioned how if the last required spots were built off of the East lot with a level sidewalk to the entrance, the worst spots for all of CRCDS would only be 3-4 car lengths longer than the initial proposal's worst spaces, but with zero compared to the 10' foot vertical climb of the proposal. Of course these would be closer and much more convenient to the rest of campus, and I'd think much easier to maintain, plow, light, construct, and use. The response seemed just shy of stunned silence. I asked this utility question again a bit later, and even Curveball offered nothing to justify the consruction of this lot.

Who knows what Curveball and his team will cook up next. Pam thinks she saw him cruising the neghborhood Friday afternoon so maybe he's brewing a new plot against Alling Deforrest's landscape work, or hopefully he's had an epiphany. I think it's clear that many more spaces can be added to the existing parking areas than have been yet admitted. I don't fully understand the ADA access ramifications but am convinced other solutions must be available at cost savings. I do really feel confident and hope they are finding the best possible solution, but we need to be ready.

One suggestion that I think makes sense is circulating a pettition stating simply that we find a new parking lot constructed on the grounds unacceptable given the lack of any solid justification.

I also think there is a lot more to provide feedback on, lighting, final parking space location decisions etc.. Please let me know if you think I am being overly optimistic or unfair.

Thanks,

Bill

'Build a lot and they will park', Kevin Costner's character in A League of Their Own

Parking Design
(So Costner wasn't in that film, maybe Bull Durham? I'm no parking engineer nor a movie expert so please accept this as a disclaimer)
Below is an illustration I made to show the design proposal reviewed Thursday and some of my suggestions for parking that I have repeatedly shared with the Bergmann-LeChase CRCDS crowd. Click the image to see it larger and read my notes, the blue (new design) areas are from my memory where the new design proposed changes, the West expansion and stairway are crude and somewhat inaccurate because I left off a few spaces, and the stairway was very neatly drawn, just with peculiar shifts that I captured in an impressionistic kind of way with shapes.
The red bits are the abandoned footprints of the original design
The green shows some of the areas I have suggested could provide parking that would in my opinion be less costly, less destructive of green spaces and to avoid the dramatic encroachment on 'the hill' and neighbors or solve an accessibility issue. I am only plugging in a total of 103 space additions as there has been little feedback to my proposals so I am showing a range of options that are less desirable, but maybe easier to execute.
As I have shared in the past, parking would in fact be less convenient in the proposed lower lots because while walking distances appear to be identical the extra crazy driving to the lower lot makes it unappealing unless you crave the roller coaster experience, want to waste time and brake pads etc.. I also shared an observation at the meeting that no other parking consumers at CRCDS would be competing for those convenient to ACS spaces, as they would be absolutely inconvenient. to the rest of campus like the proposal, some more driving would be required, and it would be a slightly longer walk. The 50 and counting spots in the front would mean that the back lot with it's 73 spaces wouldn't see cars for the main campus activities until the prior capacity reached over 90%. I described at the meeting how the major aerial map viewing websites illustrate this pattern.

Google shows ~50 to the West with only 1 in the East which probably was the catering van and shouldn't count.
Microsoft Live shows over 100 to 15 but only two empty spaces appear to the West of the East lot where at least two of the 15 were CRCDS vehicles.
Lastly Zillow chimes in at 70 to zero, that's just fishy don't you think? Surely I must be hacking into their image databases and Photoshopping these results because people would not park so predictably.

Maybe they will decide to build a parking garage.

Save Pave

5-4-09; Presentation of site plan for input
7:00 Thursday March 5th: Strong Hall, Room 117 right near the east stairtower


The meeting is in Strong Hall, at a lecture hall a couple of flights up from the main entrance. There is a receptionist if it is not clear and probably a few people will be milling about.
Attending:
Bergmann and Associates, Stephen Thompson, and presumably others
CRCDS, Mark DeVincentis, Director of Facilities, Darrell Jachim-Moore, CFO
American Cancer Society will have a couple of people in attendance, presumably Mathew Flanigan, the capital campaign and corporate relations director is one
The director of zoning for City of Rochester Art Ientilucci is invited, Zina logenegro will not be able to attend
I just got email from Katie Comeau, Director of Preservation Services who spoke at the informational meeting has offered that either she or Cynthia Howk would attend the meeting if it would be considered helpful, of course I believe it would be and will let them know.

I guess seeing the plan presented, and providing feedback is the agenda. I don't know if discussion of zoning issues would be beneficial, especially if no representative from the City Zoning board. Many topics should be in play include lighting, plantings and other details.

Late yesterday, Stephen Thompson called and told me that the revision involves a smaller 20 car lot and a retaining wall with access from the lane that currently houses the architectural materials museum. While that should dramatically reduce the footprint and impact on the slope, I don't personally like the use of the lane running next to two neighboring properties. They plan a screening fence and evergreens to reduce noise and light pollution from this installation.

Stephen pointed out that not all of the 24 ACS staff members would be able to park there so some would walk from the lot above to which I shared my concern that why would anyone choose to park down below when the walking distance would be identical, but for 7 vertical feet and the extra 500' of meandering downhill driving to park would merely waste time and brake rotors. The unseen new proposal would add an additional 200 feet of driving and a U-turn so it is also not likely to offer any net convenience either. I learned there is in fact an accessibility requirement and discussed my sidewalk solution and learned it should be well within the ADA distance requirements, so that is promising.

Other than questioning the need calculation, I've yet to hear any specific concerns over the proposal to expand the Northwest lot. The initial plan shows a significant amount of material removal, (or regrading) into the existing lot which looks like it is in need of an overhaul. I think there could be an opportunity for an additional short lane of Westward spaces off of that proposal that could put the overwhelming bulk of the added spaces closer to the core campus areas for which they are needed, leaving the East lot for ACS and high demand situations. I haven't heard specifics about parking opportunities I pointed out weeks ago but was told something was added there. Especially if the plan involved regrading I think a small extra spur could be easily integrated. as it would be on a plateau tucked behind two mature trees.

Hope to see many of you tomorrow. Bill

Save or Pave?

3-3 09
Key Dates:
Thursday, March 5th, There is a meeting scheduled at 7:00pm somewhere at CRCDS for the updated site proposal to be presented for feedback. Zina Lagonegro of planning commission fame can't attend but her supervisor, Art Ientilucci, Director of Zoning, has been invited and may attend.

Monday, March 16th, The planning commission meeting to approve the project is still set for 6:30p.m. at city hall.

Comment:
Walking the site Sunday, it was suggested that when viewing the site and looking out at the area next to the proposed staff entrance, gently sloping away to the Southeast, that it would be easy to envision that it would offer the most convenient almost private parking lot, and to fixate on that specific placement for parking expansion in the design. The fact that spaces, equally close and really more convenient already exist just out of sight one level up might not have been considered. That these are also the farthest from the rest of the campus and that expansion closer to the rest of the stated needs, class and event spaces, should keep them available for ACS' relatively exclusive use may not have occurred to anyone. It really seems that there is more capacity in the Northwest lot vicinity to place truly convenient parking elegantly within a much smaller footprint.

Update, 3-2 There is a scheduled meeting at CRCDS (don't know specifically where yet)

Why do this?

Convenience? I don't think so. The median distance from the closest 33 spaces in the existing lot would be identical to those in the current proposal, 132', although a 7' additional vertical, difference exists, avoiding the 500' steep meandering aisles and driveway should get one in the building about the same time as one would get out of your ones car in the lower lot. furthermore, with as many as 44 or more new spaces closer to campus, the demand would have to be above 90% of prior capacity to reach the point at which ACS employees would be competing for the same spaces as current CRCDS parking consumers.

The potential spaces I proposed as an alternative to achieve the stated demand calculation would be just off of the East end of the current lot, much closer to all other campus sites, and could provide an elegant solution for ramp-less wheelchair access to the ACS offices. A sidewalk tucked into the seam of the steep and gentle slopes which correspond perfectly to the height of the doorway. This distance would be consistent with the other accessible parking spaces relative to public entrances on campus.
These alternative spaces also would be only slightly farther away than the proposed lot's farthest spaces, but without the 10' vertical climb. Staying close to the current parking footprint should reduce the total capacity needed as the proposed lot, lacking a stairway, would actually be farther from the rest of campus than Pinetum Dr in Highland Park. Additionally, if parking need calculations are in doubt, it appears that their are ample opportunities to add more or less incrementally over time, rather than committing to the huge 35 space lot consuming the entire gentle slope east of Trevor and Eaton forever. Furthermore, the greatest encroachment on neighboring homes in this incremental option, would have an option to enhance an existing earthen berm, between the parking cars and the residences, clearly a superior option to the elevated roadway with landscaping proposed.

The ACS has asserted it doesn't care about distance to walk (up to 1/4 mile), only that a number of spaces be achieved. It has also stated a need to potential reduce costs in the current economic environment, surely the incremental options proposed could dramatically reduce costs and maintenance.

What to do next?

Many questions to be answered today

1880 image featuring Rochester's glacial moraine when it was an arboretum

If anyone has email addresses for officials on the mail to list, (Frankel, Duffy, Brooks, Low others) please send them in or post them here (done thanks, see this link).

General Comments

A catch all page found here.2

Action Items

*Letters, and or email phone calls if you can please and thanks in advanc
*Other groups seem interested in piling on this issue, may be an opportunity to present something Monday at 5:30
*A couple of people have cc'd emails with landmarksociety.org -report that they are getting a lot of calls!
*Paul spoke to the President of CRCDS Tuesday to raise concern of effects on campus and neighborhood, he confirmed a lot about what has been known and presumed, I'll elaborate when I have time.
*The meeting next Monday is 'Informational', so not do or die, but hopefully an opportunity to redirect expansion and re-classification...

Conspiracy theories

and other possibly less serious thoughts I apologize in advance for link

FAQ with open and questions. as well

FAQ link
if anyone has answers or additional questions please use comments link immediately below this post, thanks.