Barrier Slide Show

As we wrote to you in our April 19th cover letter with our design ideas, our Group’s consistent position on the barrier issue is that it should be removed in favor of an alternative that would remove the public’s impression that it is private land. By replacing temporary barrels that are 18 feet wide with an 8-10 inch curbed berm that is 24 feet wide, with chevrons and virtually the same sign that tells the public to move on, our goal certainly has not been achieved. Furthermore, with the hotel guests using the road now to enter the parking strip, there is clearly inequity with the policy on vehicular access. It begs the question, if hotel guests have unlimited access to that road, why can’t handicapped individuals, at the very least, drive down there and park? Our signage and striping proposal encouraged that. The current plan does not provide for it in any way. A handicapped individual would have to make an assumption, and in the absence of an invitation by sign or by visible handicap space, they aren’t likely to enter what they, too, will probably perceive as private property.

We can assure you, based on the feedback we’ve gotten from the last plan, that people will be upset. And we will be too, honestly. We truly wanted this alternative plan to appease the people who have patiently participated in a year of heated issues and a lot of work on the part of a lot of people. We didn’t expect everything we asked for, and don’t expect everyone to be happy. And we truly know there are many issues. Nevertheless, this is a time for the residents to feel good about what is happening there given what has occurred since last summer. The Open Space donation from Paul’s development and Town agreement to accept it was great news. The outcome of the Special Committee was not good news. This final plan barrier will not be either, we predict.

… cont.

Since the first plan arrived with the “planters” we’ve had feedback that people thought the design would be MORE restrictive to public access than the barrels, and give even MORE impression to the general public that the road is private land. Nevertheless, we made no judgment, we only provided the information we had from you.

This latest plan had more detail in terms of the signage contents (although we don’t know what size they are or where they will go), and the pedestrian walkway. But what has us concerned is that the sign is essentially identical to the one that is there now. (by the way, the arrow points in the wrong direction on the plan). When we examine this plan as a whole, we wonder what really will change. The same message is delivered by the sign; there is a structure (a permanent one now) across half of the public way, and the street will become, for all practical purposes, accessible to vehicles only if they are guests of the hotel. Imagine for a moment that you drove up to this area and saw 20 cars parked in the hotel strip - cars which had obviously pulled into those spots from the hotel side. You see a sign that directs you as “thru traffic” elsewhere. Wouldn’t you make the assumption that the street is simply part of the hotel property? That has been the number one issue with us and the people we represent. We do not believe that this final plan addresses that basic principle. We do, however, believe a plan is possible that would.

You mentioned in your last mail that the wording on the sign was approved by the Council. We assume you mean the 1989 Council when it adopted the Bray Study. But that study also indicated that the structures Bray called “improvements” would be “ temporary measures” due to winter maintenance and because of higher traffic volume in the summer (see attached report, bottom of page 1). The permanent nature of the curbed berm design and your statement that this would be “year-round” arguably violates the 1989 Town Council’s acceptance of the Bray report.