Councilman John Heneghan questions 12 foot path plan, suggests path reduction and increased tree / shade coverage.
Facebook video - starting at 05:19:52 to 05:26:00
Councilman John Heneghan thoughts on possible Bond Referendum and plans that need to be finalized before asking citizens to consider tax increase.
Facebook video - starting 06:12:10
On June 13th the Dunwoody City Council had a 6 plus hour city council meeting with important topics being discussed with very few citizens in the audience but that being said the meetings are recorded and the meeting of June 13th can be replayed at a later point.
At this meeting there was a discussion on possible multi-use (bike, walk, scooter) 12 foot path plans on Tilly Mill between Mt. Vernon and Womack whereby staff wanted Council to decide whether advanced planning documents should be created for either the East Side (Congregation Ariel) or the West Side (JCC) and staff recommended the East side because of a number of factors and I agreed with that proposal for doing the advanced planing there, mainly because of the high number of walkers commuting to and from Congregation Ariel. Once the advanced drawings are created, staff meets with every affected property owner / subdivision to work out issues where the city would be changing the area within the City's right of way.
Residents in various sections of the city where these 12 foot wide paths are planned are worried & upset with the city as this is not what they want on their property or abutting their community. This is probably the number one topic of emails received by the City Council in the last month as there has been numerous concerns of safety, security, loss of privacy, changes to subdivision entrances, loss of trees & landscaping and the fact that a 12 foot concrete sidewalk without any shade is just an ugly amenity that no one wants.
At the June 13th meeting I questioned 12 foot path widths, asked for reductions and dedicated landscaping plans for each segment of proposed paths. When City surveys state that residents say they want paths, I believe they are dreaming of tree lined, shaded paths in Brook Run Park and not a 12 foot area in front of their home where trees and vegetation was removed from landscaped areas that will now be devoid of tree or shade coverage to install that 12 ft wide concrete path. I think my point was understood by staff and members of Council but unsure where this topic is going. If any path advanced plans or drawings remove tree canopy I would also want those advanced planning documents to show the needed landscaping and replaced tree shade to make this amenity beautiful and desirable to walk, and if this landscaping is not part of the plan, then I believe we would have failed in the planing and construction of the project.
Because of the numerous email inquiries and opinions being raised regarding paths, I have started doing research as to path width reductions, minimum requirements and other cost savings that could still facilitate movement yet be a reduction on the impacts to the homeowners being directly affected. In one document, I see a possibility of 6 ft paths (sidewalks) being acceptable and if these paths (sidewalks) were installed on both sides of the street it might alleviate the fears of the citizens that these 12 foot path plans being pushed by the Staff & Council might do more harm to the community than the proposed long term benefits.
As there are numerous technical journals and documents on the subject, I do trust staff's professional opinion about what is legal and proper when exploring best practices for paths, unfortunately having the proposed wide paths squeezed into our tight right of way, leaves little or no room for the beauty and shade that makes walking such paths desirable. If we can't find consensus on Council for what size paths are appropriate on single family neighborhood streets, that allows for adequate shade coverage, I will be reviewing the plans moving forward for such amenities prior to me voting for the construction of such paths.
At the very end of the evening of the 13th, just before midnight, the Dunwoody City Council discussed feedback from Bond Referendum Town Hall Meetings. I have posted my audio clip from that discussion as I believe we need to narrow the scope of the projects as to what is really needed and can be constructed in a reasonable time frame. We need to better flush out our park designs so the residents have a better idea what amenities will be included at each park and if all of that is completed in the next six months then we can restart the bond referendum discussions for a possible vote in November of 2023.
This same type of Capital Project List discussion is again slated for deep into tonight's meeting and unfortunately I will be unable to attend to weigh in on the matter as I am back in Chicago for a short trip taking care of an ill family member; therefore I figured I would restate my opinion that I believe we as a city are not ready to move forward with a bond referendum at this time. That being said, there is still much to discuss, facts to review and I am interested in what my fellow Council members bring to the table; therefore my mind is open to any and all possibilities.
All your hard and thoughtful work, and last night, council proved that they do not care about what the citizens of this city want. As one commenter said, we are at the point of regretting incorporation.
ReplyDelete