Commission delays decision on South Park Drive redesign after strong neighborhood opposition; asks staff for parking, safety and cost details

The Park and Playground Commission on April 28 reviewed two staff alternatives for South Park Drive reconstruction and, after extended public comment and commissioner debate, voted to postpone any recommendation and ask staff to return with refined parking counts, cost estimates, and safety and emergency‑access information.

Staff presentation and alternatives Bridal Adeboni, director of Public Works Engineering (introduced in the meeting), presented Option 1, which would retain vehicular access while adding a separated bi‑directional multi‑use path and reconfigured parking along the south side of South Park Drive, and Option 2, a council‑directed alternative that illustrated a full closure of South Park Drive to vehicles with parking reconfigured and access routed via Woodland Avenue and new lot access points. Adeboni and the project team said cost estimates have not been prepared in detail; staff said Option 2 would likely be cheaper from a pavement standpoint but that council had budgeted for Option 1 if selected.

Neighborhood concerns and public comments A long public‑comment period followed. Dozens of residents who live along Woodland Avenue and nearby streets urged the commission to avoid shifting large volumes of park traffic and parking onto Woodland, a narrow, historic residential street. Speakers raised safety and livability concerns, including increased traffic, noise and wear on Woodland Avenue, the potential for blocked emergency access, impacts to historic properties and view corridors, and a dislike of the proposed south‑side angled parking strip. Representative remarks included these concerns from speakers who identified themselves at the microphone: Laura Berry said closing South Park Drive would "significantly increase traffic volume, bringing noise and congestion" to Woodland Avenue and would threaten the character of nearby historic homes; Brenda Krotz asked why parking would be sited adjacent to the Woodland Avenue fence line and urged using existing informal parking (horseshoe pit area); other residents echoed requests to retain access while addressing safety with narrower, less intrusive parking designs.

Commission discussion, motions and outcome Commissioners questioned staff about parking counts, bus access for school groups, emergency‑response access (including gate/key procedures), and whether the horseshoe‑pit area or other lots could be developed as additional parking to reduce neighborhood impact. One motion to recommend Option 1 with minimized visual impact of parking was moved and seconded but failed in the roll call. Commissioners subsequently moved to postpone the item to the next meeting and to ask staff to return with: (1) a variant of Option 1 that reduces or mitigates the south‑side parking strip, (2) an analysis and stall count for expanding parking in the horseshoe‑pit area and other lots (including any Sycamore Field adjustments from Option 2), (3) estimated costs for the alternatives, and (4) data on any pedestrian/vehicle collisions or incidents and emergency‑response implications. The postponement motion passed unanimously 6–0.

What happens next Staff said they can return next month with the requested information and stall counts and that any final recommendation would go to city council as part of project design and environmental review. Commissioners asked that staff present clear visual options and the parking tradeoffs so residents can review suggested changes before a recommendation is forwarded to council.

(Reporting note: the commission debated multiple variants and asked for additional on‑site review, cost estimates and parking‑count scenarios before forwarding any recommendation to council.)