Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City engineer, consultant outline 100 South redesign; plan would remove roughly 30 on-street stalls
Summary
City engineer Arthur LeBaron and Travis Martin of JUB Engineers presented a full-build plan for 100 South that follows the downtown master plan and adds bulb-outs, separated sidewalks and lighting; the design eliminates diagonal parking and is expected to reduce on-street stalls by about 30. Staff will host a public open house on March 25.
Arthur LeBaron, the city engineer, told the planning commission and city council at a joint work meeting that staff is advancing a full-build design for 100 South consistent with the city’s downtown master plan and a standard cross section already used on 100 North and 300 North. The design includes 5-foot sidewalks, a 5.5-foot park strip, curb and gutter, parallel parking lanes and two 12‑foot travel lanes on each side, and would not retain diagonal parking.
The change has a measurable parking impact: Travis Martin of JUB Engineers said block-by-block counts show losses on multiple blocks (for example, one block would drop from about 20 stalls to 8 after improvements, another from 28 to 15). "So overall, there's about 108 parking stalls within the project limits. We are down to about 76," Martin said, a net loss of roughly 30 stalls. LeBaron cautioned, "We're gonna find out exactly how many parking spots we're losing and how many we're providing... So that's the bad news."
Martin said angled parking creates safety risks from vehicles backing into traffic and that the proposed configuration will separate sidewalks and reduce pedestrian crossing distances with bulb-outs. "Angle parking is not the safest parking method," Martin said, describing concerns about collisions when drivers back from angled stalls.
Multiple council and commission members and residents questioned that trade-off between pedestrian-focused design and event-driven parking needs. One committee member noted the city already faces persistent parking shortages at the community center and said converting lost on-street stalls into off-street capacity could be costly. Another participant estimated recent new parking lots cost roughly $11,000 per stall and suggested the plan could represent multi‑million‑dollar equivalent in replaced parking value, a figure LeBaron did not confirm.
Staff and consultants identified mitigation options to reduce event impacts: acquiring or converting nearby parcels south of the community center or north of the Fine Arts Building, restructuring existing on-site pavement to create defined stalls, temporary shuttles or golf-cart service during large events, or — more costly — a parking structure. LeBaron said the city could prepare an exhibit showing a full-improvement cross section that retains diagonal parking so the council can compare outcomes.
LeBaron emphasized the design follows an established city standard and urged members to raise policy-level changes now: "If we want a different direction the city council wants to go, then... we do that. But what we have here is the standard." He also committed to additional one-on-one conversations with residents whose frontage and driveway access would be affected.
The next public step is an open house planned for March 25 from 5 to 7 p.m. at the community center, where staff and JUB Engineers will present the design and collect community feedback before finalizing construction documents and advertising the project to bid.
