The following was sent to the city administration by Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus on November 30, 2009.
Our City has a problem. In fact, we’ve got a bunch of them.
We’ve reached a new level of pathetic when a developer can stand in front of a meeting convened to address safety issues and, with a straight face, call raising concerns about safety and pedestrians a “monkey wrench” issue or “a made up problem”. Or when a Commissioner can suggest because we’ve gone four or five months at 315/317 Pine Avenue and we’ve had no accidents, there’s no safety issue. Or that someone can suggest, because we’ve never had a pedestrian struck on a sidewalk on Pine Avenue, it’s acceptable to approve an off-street parking design that clearly increases the probability of that happening. Or when a developer can threaten our City with a lawsuit if we dare apply the language in our Land Development Regulations as it was clearly intended to be applied.
We’ve got a developer who’s trying to beat the system by submitting site plans quickly before the Commissioners refine the land development regulations. I’ve seen one of the next trio of site plans. It has ten more of the same back-out parking arrangements most of the Commissioners consider unsafe. It also has a loading zone placed squarely in the visibility triangle-- that 20 ft in both directions from an intersection area that’s supposed to remain clear of permanent structures for safety reasons. Allowing a 13’-6” high truck to park there, even temporarily, is also clearly unsafe.
Fortunately, there’s adequate language within our LDR to reject those site plans, even before the Commissioners clarify the language.
Unfortunately, the City has already accepted similar plans.
What to do?
I think the City needs to acknowledge they’ve mistakenly accepted site plans that are non-compliant with this language and other safety criteria presently contained in the LDR: Sec. 90-3. Off-street parking requirements. (m) General design standards. All off-street parking areas, including all areas for maneuvering, shall be located solely on the subject property, shall not use public rights-of-way, shall have vehicular access to a public street, and shall be designed to provide safe and convenient circulation in accordance with commonly accepted traffic engineering practices.
In a phone conversation with Mayor Barford on Saturday [11/28/09], I quoted a portion of this standard to her. Her response was “I’m not sure that’s what it says.”
That’s a problem. The Mayor needs to read these requirements carefully. She needs to understand their intent. She needs to know what they say. And she needs to apply them.
Obviously, the back-out parking arrangement approved on the newly developed lots on Pine Avenue requires maneuvering within the right-of-way. It should be equally obvious that requiring pedestrians to be on high alert because they risk being struck by a vehicle backing over them while they’re on the City sidewalk is absurd. It’s neither safe nor convenient. Furthermore, regulations regarding curb cuts or driveway openings have been ignored. There’s been no attempt to limit access openings or restrict the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians. That arrangement is unsafe and noncompliant at many levels.
The City should inform this developer and all future developers, all pending and future site plans must be compliant with the above noted general design standards for off-street parking.
This latest batch of site plans must be rejected. Because the City has mistakenly approved this parking arrangement in the past does not mean it’s required to repeat those mistakes in the future. I’m aware P&Z approved these back-out parking arrangements as well. But I suggest if this Administration had done its job, if our experts had stood up and rejected the parking arrangements and educated the rest of us on why they were unacceptable, citing safety and convenience concerns, we would have seen a different outcome.
This Administration needs to provide leadership on this hugely important issue. Mayor Barford needs to assure us she and her experts are going to get it right this time. It’s critical this language is applied. It’s critical these plans are rejected at the Administrative review level. If the Administration passes the buck on these parking arrangements, and forces the P&Z or the Commissioners to do the heavy lifting, the Administration once again will have given a non-compliant, inherently unsafe site plan its stamp of approval.
Our Mayor needs to sit down with our Building Official and our Town Planner, review the language within the Comp Plan and the LDR, and deny these present site plan applications based on that language. Not approval. Not approval with conditions. Denial. They can easily justify their basis for denial with this language in the LDR: Chapter 74-354 Site plan application process. (d) (7) Once the application is deemed complete, the application shall be reviewed to determine compliance with city codes and regulations in accordance with the standards for review provided below. (h) Standards for review: (6) Whether the off-street parking and off-street loading facilities are located to avoid hazardous automotive and pedestrian traffic patterns and to ensure access by emergency vehicles;
If the Administration gets it wrong and accepts these site plans without requiring the back-out parking design be eliminated, they’ve greatly weakened the City’s hand if the developer litigates. And if an accident should occur, and someone’s seriously injured or killed by a vehicle backing out of one of these parking spaces , the Administration has left the City with a serious liability issue in the event of a lawsuit, especially considering how much attention has been focused on the obvious safety issues.
If the Administration gets it right, and rejects these site plans, the developer may choose to appeal. I doubt either P&Z or the Commissioners will reverse the Administration’s decision. If the developer sues the City, I doubt any judge will fault our City for following its Comp Plan and its Land Development Regulations. It’s required to do so, by law. Then the developer can do the right thing and put together some site plans that actually provide for the safety and convenience of our drivers and our pedestrians.
And we’ll wind up with a walking business district on Pine Avenue that makes sense.
Isn’t that, after all, the goal here?
Harry Stoltzfus
Monday, November 30, 2009
3 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: Our Anna Maria Blog invites significant and thoughtful discussion. It is not, however, a democracy. Comments considered offensive or innappropriate may be removed at the discretion of any one of the blog administators without notice. If the removal of your comment may offend you, it is probably best that you not comment at all. After typing in your comment, click on the "Subscribe by email" link (below, right) to have email alerts sent to your computer whenever a new comment is proffered regarding this post.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Stolfus makes an outstanding point: if the City and business community want a walking district that is safe and pleasant for tourists and residents, vehicles cannot be constantly and everywhere backing onto the sidewalk.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. Tourists like to stroll down tree-canopied sidewalks. They won’t choose to meander down a walk and patronize shops with children, grandchildren or guests if they have to worry about cars backing into them every step of the way.
And if they are a driver who wants to patronize a Pine Avenue shop, backing out of these over-the-sidewalk spaces of which Commisioner Stolfus speaks is harrowing.
I have done it and fear for someone’s life or limb.
To back out, one must look for an opening in busy high season vehicle traffic, as well as watch for pedestrians on the sidewalk and vacationers on multi-pedal bikes.
One must do this facing backwards in the car, peering into one’s back, left and right side mirrors, and also grabbing a glimpse out the back window to check for traffic and pedestrians.
And backing OUT is the only option here. For to PULL out of a slot over the sidewalk, one must first BACK it. This requires a two-point back-up turn that stops both lanes of traffic—easier said than done—and increases safety problems.
It makes sense for the business district to look out for its own best interests.
But designing parking spaces that cross a public sidewalk, cross everywhere over the right-of-way, and use a public street and sidewalk paid for by resident taxpayer money as their private parking lot (as listed in land use above), is not in their own best interests.
The business community should not be so short-sighted.
Instead, they should eliminate the back-out-over-the-sidewalk-directly-onto-the-street parking design.
They should angle their parking spaces, put truck loading areas away from the street, and provide a clear entrance and exit drive to their lots.
And to get more parking spaces they should design buildings with a first floor parking area under the shops.
Two points:
ReplyDelete1. The AAA, in their driving program for seniors, advises them to never pull into a head in parking spot because of the known danger of injury or accident when pulling out. That's fairly strong documentation and this was placed in their training program based upon statistics not conjecture.
2. From an actuarial standpoint, as long as it is possible for an event to occur, and when you create more opportunities for it to occur vis a vis creating more "straight in" parking on a busy street, then it is more likely to occur. Past behavior does not predict future performance when circumstances are changing and the catalyst for accidents is increased. It's just statistics.