Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superior Gateway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs angled parking concept for Superior Street gateway, seeks separated bike/ped access
Summary
City staff showed alternative cross‑sections for the Superior Street gateway and the committee voted to support angled parking to increase street parking and calm traffic, provided robust, separated pedestrian and bicycle access is included.
City planning staff presented alternatives Nov. 15 for the Superior Street gateway — the corridor from the Long Bridge off‑ramp into downtown — and the advisory committee voted to support an angled‑parking concept on the condition that the design includes robust, separated pedestrian and bicycle access.
Staff explained the corridor’s unusually wide right‑of‑way (110–140 feet in places) and reviewed the 2012 downtown streets plan cross‑sections. The new concept replaces parallel parking with 60‑degree angled parking (standard city detail: roughly 16–17 feet per angled stall) to increase on‑street capacity and create larger landscaped buffers and multiuse paths in front of forthcoming mixed‑use development on the corridor.
Supporters said angled parking can calm vehicle speeds and increase the distance between travel lanes and the pedestrian realm; critics cautioned that angled parking presents hazards for cyclists if adequate separated facilities are not provided. Committee members urged a 12–15 foot shared‑use path on the north side to accommodate people coming from the Long Bridge and recommended studying a narrower path on the south side where connections differ.
The motion to support angled parking subject to ‘‘robust separated pedestrian and bicycle access’’ was moved, seconded and approved by a voice vote in the meeting; transcript shows an affirmative voice vote but no roll‑call tally of individual votes. Staff and members also discussed privately‑owned trails (the Serenity Lane/Serenity Trail behind the Powderhorn) that currently lack recorded easements, and noted that any long‑term bicycle connections through private parcels will require easements or negotiated access.
Next steps: staff will refine cross‑section options (exact planter widths, sidewalk/shared‑use path widths and parking stall dimensions) and bring amended language and visuals back to the committee for further guidance prior to any formal plan amendment or council recommendation.
