Laserfiche WebLink
15 <br /> <br />Pedestrian Use, and Will Preserve the Character of Streets and <br />Neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contention: The Project violates the “complete streets” policy of the DTPP <br />as the building height and setbacks will not make pedestrians feel their streets “are <br />safer, more livable and welcoming to everyone,” that it does not create a “public <br />frontage” on Jefferson Avenue, and that it will be detrimental to Jefferson Avenue as a <br />pedestrian walkway. (See Carr, Yeley and Associates Appeal, pp. 1, 3, and 5) <br /> <br />City’s Response: The complete streets policy seeks to ensure that the public rights-of- <br />way are convenient for all modes of transportation (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle and <br />vehicular travel). The abutting streets – Jefferson Avenue and Bradford Street – are <br />already largely consistent with this policy; however, the DTPP identifies the intersection <br />at Jefferson/Bradford as an intersection with potential for additional pedestrian <br />improvements (DTPP, p.11). With the incorporation of the required 12’ wide sidewalks <br />along both street frontages, new street trees and street lights (DTPP, p. 63), new <br />pedestrian bulb-outs and crosswalks on all four corners of the intersection, and an <br />active retail use along the ground floor for the majority of the building length along the <br />Jefferson Avenue frontage and more than 50-feet along the Bradford Street frontage, <br />the Project is consistent with all aspects of public frontage and streetscape provisions of <br />the DTPP, and the complete streets policy. <br /> <br />v. The Project is Consistent with the Community Intent and Guiding <br />Principles of the DTPP, and its Policies to Promote the Development of a <br />Vibrant Downtown Community Through Commercial Development of a <br />Range of Buildings <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contention: The Project violates the DTPP vision to retain the “history, <br />charm and livability” of an historic medium sized city; that it does not contribute to the <br />formation of a “vibrant and beautiful city center;” that it does not aid in creating a <br />“memorable urban district interwoven with the city’s identity;” that it fails to “achieve <br />benefit to the widest possible range of user populations;” that it does not “rebuild the <br />downtown on the traditional framework” of its history and scale; that it does not <br />represent “urbanism;” that it does not reflect the “vision” of the DTPP as depicted in the <br />drawings on pages 19-23; and that it does not emphasize streets doubling as “outdoor <br />open spaces.” (See Carr, Yeley and Associates Appeal, pp. 1-3) <br /> <br />City’s Response: As discussed throughout this report, the Project meets all of the <br />development standards and all but five of the design guidelines, and as such is <br />consistent with the intent and guiding principles of the DTPP. The DTPP allows for <br />8.C. - Page 15