Thursday, December 10, 2009

Public Protests Removal of Trees at Proposed Parking Plaza

By Brian Stewart

At least a dozen members of the community and representatives of various city entities attended the meeting of the Public Works Commission this evening. They learned that $400,000-450,000 had been budgeted originally in 2003 for the Melilli Plaza plan. Owing to various changes and improvements, the anticipated cost was now to be $800,000 or more. Chief components of the increased cost were:

o regrading to join the upper (Melilli Plaza) and lower (municipal building, with access on Dekoven Drive) parking lots;
o electronic access infrastructure;
o improved lighting;
o increased support for persons with disabilities.

The project was to go out to bid after Christmas. After a few questions by the commissioners, public comment was invited. Among those speaking were representatives of the Jonah Center (John Hall); the Conservation Commission (Kate Miller); Urban Forestry; Planning & Zoning Commissioner Catherine Johnson; and several members of the community. Ms. Johnson asked a question, quickly establishing that the proposed parking lot would have 260 spaces, the same as the current lot (although she disputed the number of current spaces, which she said was over 290).

I will summarize here the points that were offered, combining them and summarizing for conciseness:

o A million dollars for a parking lot the same size with fewer shade trees seems an inappropriate expenditure, especially in a time of financial stress;
o Stormwater runoff should be treated before discharge into the Connecticut River;
o The comment, attributed to Public Works Director Bill Russo in a Courant article this morning, that stormwater runoff "is treated and will continue to be" is incorrect (Mr. Russo disowned the comment, attributing it to Planning & Zoning Director "Bill Warner's office");
o Parking lot Surfaces ought to be pervious, to reduce runoff;
o The trees, London Plane Trees, are sizeable and ought to be kept for their shade and beauty;
o The loss of trees throughout the citiy ought to be reversed;
o Priorities ought to be to make the project appealing, pedestrian-friendly, and environmentally benign.
o Impact on/improvement of the link with Harbor Park should be considered.

After brief discussion, the commissioners weighed in with their opinions. Commissioner Bauer said the plan was bad and we should "pull the plug" on it. Commissioner Klattenberg said that cost had escalated to the point that it is a problem in itself. He felt it was not "in the cards" to fund the increase from $400,000 to $900,000. He felt scaling back the project, perhaps through abandoning the costly interconnection of the upper and lower lots, would be necessary. At the same time, he also said that the city's "signature parking lot" should not look like a Wal-Mart parking lot. The Commissioners agreed that it makes sense to involve the new Parking Director, who begins work in January, in any final decision. Chairman Streeto said he would like to hear from the Business District and the Chamber of Commerce. For these reasons, the Commissioners agreed to delay the project, requesting a scaled-back proposal that addressed concerns of aesthetics, environmental friendliness, and access, both for persons with disabilities and for bicycles, at reduced cost.

4 comments:

John Hall said...

Thank you, Brian, for your excellent summary of the meeting and its outcome. I also want to thank all the members of the community who phoned, sent emails, and attended or spoke at the meeting. This is how democracy is supposed to work, and I feel we all helped the city avoid a costly mistake. Now we need to maintain our vigilance and work with the new Parking Director and other city leaders to ensure an eco-friendly and aesthetically pleasing outcome in the long run.

Anonymous said...

why was my comment posted and then removed..???

Jen Alexander said...

Dear Anon @ 3.32,

If a comment is posted and then removed, there will a notation that the administrator deleted the comment. In this case, I wonder if you were one of the commenters on the earlier article about this issue? Those comments are still there.

Hope this helps,

-Jen Alexander

Anonymous said...

you are correct thanks Jen