permanent parking lot
play

Permanent Parking Lot July 12, 2017 F-1 -16 Location Map F-1 -17 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Community Services Commission Huntington Central Park Permanent Parking Lot July 12, 2017 F-1 -16 Location Map F-1 -17 Senior Center in Central Park Raptor Foraging Area F-1 -18 1000 Radius Map F-1 -19 Basics Design for 42 marked


  1. Community Services Commission Huntington Central Park Permanent Parking Lot July 12, 2017 F-1 -16

  2. Location Map F-1 -17

  3. Senior Center in Central Park Raptor Foraging Area F-1 -18

  4. 1000’ Radius Map F-1 -19

  5. Basics  Design for 42 marked parking stalls including 2 ADA accessible  Need to provide capacity for 1 school bus  Parking lot hours same as Central Park: 5 am – 10 pm daily  Basic lighting included for lot and driveway(s)  Reviewed access and circulation options for:  Costs  Traffic safety  Maneuvering F-1 -20

  6. Alternatives  Identified 2 basic alternatives  No connection to Senior Center driveway – existing  Connection to Senior Center driveway F-1 -21

  7. Alternative 1 – Single Point Driveway F-1 -22

  8. Alternative 1  Essentially the existing configuration  No connection to Senior Center driveway  Requires turn around area for buses  Limited access from Goldenwest (right in/right out)  No accidents related to driveway since 2005 opening  Goldenwest traffic can be challenging to some – requires patience to wait for appropriate gaps  Estimated construction costs - $255,000 F-1 -23

  9. Alternative 3 – Full Access Driveway from Senior Center Driveway F-1 -24

  10. Alternative 3  Median opening for full access  All vehicles can use signal access  Potential removal of existing driveway  Turnaround needed for buses  Additional construction challenges due to differing elevations of Senior Center driveway  Estimated construction cost - $343,000 F-1 -25

  11. Conclusions  Both alternatives are feasible for construction  Both alternatives within expected budget - $610,000  Greater convenience with Alternative 3  Potential aesthetic considerations with Alternative 3  Both alternatives provide safe access – Alt. 3 with additional controls that may be more acceptable to some motorists F-1 -26

  12. Conclusions  No superior alternative based on engineering  Decisions comes down to preferences  Need to weigh relative importance of:  Convenience  Aesthetics  Costs  Traffic safety improvements F-1 -27

  13. Recommended Action Approve one of the two alternative plans as presented 1. to convert the temporary parking lot to a permanent parking lot and make recommendation for approval to City Council. And; Make recommendation to City Council to update the 2. Central Park Master Plan of Recreational Uses for Central Park to identify the approximate one acre site as a permanent parking lot. F-1 -28

Recommend


More recommend