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?