07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1845-1/2 University; Bennett Pascal, 55 Prall Lane. They felt it was a critical link in the bike path system, that any resulting parking space shortage would be be- cause businesses were established prior to current parking requirements; the bike lanes as proposed would be safer and would encourage bike riding to the down- e town area; loss of parking for some of the businesses in that area would not be substantially detrimnetal for them; the route was the most direct between the downtown and the southern part of the city; use of the public right-of-way for public purposes (bike traffic) would be more appropriate than for parking space for private interests; the route was necessary for safe bike use and for a smooth flow of auto traffic around the central business district and to connect with the already established lanes on the Amazon Parkway; possibility that new less hazardous traffic patterns would be more beneficial than detrimental to those businesses objecting to the loss of on-street parking. Roy Dwyer, 1501 Pearl Street, was neither opposed nor in favor of the"proposal. He questioned however, the reasons for confining the issue to problems of parking on these two streets. He suggested the whole issue of parking in the entire com- munity should be considered, more than just this one area. Speaking against the removal of parking to accommodate bike lanes on Pearl and High were Richard Miller, 195 West 35th Place, attorney representing Jack Malone; Manager of Farrell's, 1313 Pearl Street; Bob Smith, manager of Koford-Chapman- Malone, 286 East 18th Avenue; Paula Vohrs, 1832 High Street; Henry Baitis, 1930 Buck Street; John Barber, 1280 Pearl Street. They based their objections on II-A-2 economic hardship resulting from loss of tenants if on-street parking was re- moved; use of Mill and Ferry Streets for the bike couplet would be safer than using Pearl and High; hazardous route for bike riding. especially with left-turn auto movements; sidewalks could be converted to use by bikes; any hazards pre- sented by driveways, landscaping, etc. , for bikes using sidewalks would seem also e to present a hazard for pedestrians; question of advisability of having a series of disconnected bike routes; these partiqllar streets too hERvi ly loaded with auto traffic for installation of bike lanes; property owners' opinions should be given consideration since they were paying for the street assessments; sufficient park- ing not available now; other routes to and from the central area should be planned. Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager noted that poll of property owners indicated 27.5% having front footage abutting Pearl Street opposed the plan; on High street, less than 20%. He stressed that although this proposal for parking removal applied only to Pearl and High south of 11th, the striping for bike lanes would run from 6th through to 19th. Al Williams ~dded that the lanes would be striped from 6th Avenue south; they would be signed from that point north to the south bank route (along the River). Councilman Murray inquired about the 1990 Plan designation for this area. whether II-B-l 13th was considered the boundary of the downtown area, and what procedures were necessary to provide parking should a new business decide to become established in the area of Pearl and High between 11th and 19th. Assistant Manager Keith Martin and Planning Director John Porter answered that the area under consideration for the most part was commercial, some goes into medium-density housing. Parking requirements are based on a square footage area, depending upon the nature of a development. The downtown boundary on Oak was at 13th, it was not definitely known with regard to Pearl. To provide parking space, a new business would have to acquire other property, if locating in an established building, or attempt to e convert existing space. In commercial zones, it is possible to install parking spac~ in front yards with appropriate screening. Portions of older buildings do not have to meet present parking requirements, but new additions to older building would,. 7/14/75 - 8 3'5