Fw Summarization Of Downtown Meeting ID: 49263

From Transparency Search Tool
prev current thread (7) next


Tina and Phil agree that a very basic summarization of priorities resulting from the meeting on Monday are just what we have been hearing from downtown stakeholders and can be summarized into two basic categories:

Traffic

Truck Route

Pedestrian Safety

Better identification of parking

Lack of investment by property owners

Financial Incentives

Regarding truck routes, we would like to see the route more clearly identified with signage; and consider widening east street with the redevelopment of the water treatment site. We would also like for staff to contact truck GPS apps to see if trucks could be routed via Rte 45 and 9. We are concerned about the wear and tear on FF Hwy in addition to the safety and traffic flow issues. Although unsure if there will be interest from the business owners, they could be encouraged to require certain specifics on their purchase orders. These could include size of delivery trucks, hours of delivery, and location. There are many tight downtown and urban areas all across the US that do this - it is not unreasonable for business owners to do this.

We would like to begin engineering to address pedestrian safety and parking. While the property owners do not universally want the streets to be widened, it could make sense to bring pocket park forward and perhaps Mertz's property (has been hit twice in recent years). Safety barriers could be installed and hidden with streetscape elements. Bulb-outs should be considered at least on the SE corner of first and Main since that is a commuter route. We would like for a legal opinion of why the crosswalk cannot be placed on the North side of the intersection. None of the rest of downtown is compliant, and we are having a hard time justifying to stakeholders.

Address the perception of a lack of convenient parking with appropriate signage and streetscape elements recommended in the Vision Plan, such as the better connection using green elements to visually connect the spaces. If the parking lot is considered parkland, perhaps some of the cost could come from the parks fund. Again, not sure of the level of support, but building owners could include employee parking requirements in the east end of the city lot in their leases. This is not unreasonable as most shopping districts have similar requirements and employees park much further away. Employee parking should also be discouraged north of 2nd street and on the side streets as these are also convenient for visitors to downtown. No funds are suggested for enforcement which should mostly resolve itself through peer pressure.

We would like a full board discussion of the 353 plan that staff developed as well as any of the other tools outlined in the Vision Plan. Funding requests can be boiled down to:

Wayfinding and truck signage - (request City and CID funds). This is an immediate need and easy fix that doesn't need to wait for a new budget.

Engineering (from the general and parks fund) to make above improvements. If there is consensus from the BOA, we would like to start the RFP process for selecting the firm to begin prior to the new budget year.

In return we should expect building and property owners to enforce regular business hours and parking requirements via their leases in addition to the above-mentioned truck delivery items.

We are not requesting additional action on quiet zones as staff is already pursuing.