As Bill Kuhl, the architectural consultant, a former member of the Architectural Design Review Board, a Garden City resident, and the consultant employed by the Village to design the streetscape beautification project, presented the proposed plans for Franklin Avenue, the members of the ADRB and the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the layby parking issue. The Board and the Commission held a special joint meeting on Tuesday, May 19 in the Board Room at Village Hall. Kuhl gave the slide-show presentation that was given to the POAs and the trustees, as was covered in Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 issues of Garden City Life. During his presentation, the members of the Commission, led by Hamilton Smith, and the Board, led by Bob Bridges, expressed their reservations about the proposed layby parking for Franklin Avenue and asked that a traffic engineer be hired to evaluate the safety of such a proposition.

At the conclusion of the presentation a series of questions about why the layby parking was included, requests for a breakdown of the cost for the project with layby and without layby parking, and strong urgings for a traffic engineer all followed. As the members indicated that they would not feel comfortable with the project until these questions, requests, and urgings, were addressed, Village Administrator Bob Schoelle spoke up and clarified that this presentation was essentially a courtesy to the Board and the Commission, but was not a matter for their approval, and while they appreciated the input and would take it under advisement, the project and its details are all up to the Board of Trustees.

Hamilton Smith responded to Schoelle's point that he felt in light of this statement that the project was a "done deal" and that they had spent a lot of time asking a series of questions that wouldn't change anything. Throughout the meeting Smith had expressed his own concerns about the proposal for layby parking and was very specific in his questioning which attempted to pinpoint who had recommended the parallel parking be installed on Franklin Avenue. Kuhl had explained that the trustees had requested plans with and without layby and that the conceptual plans approved by the Board of Trustees were a compromise between the two. He stated that there are to be only 38 spaces made, which he characterized as "not too many." Smith countered that with only 38 spaces, the calming of the traffic, which was initially presented by the Majority Report of the Business Planning Coalition as why layby was necessary, was then not truly to be fulfilled. He stated that he did not see the point of including these spaces then and countered Kuhl's argument that it created a buffer between the street and the sidewalk for pedestrians with the proposed landscaping.

Kuhl also explained that the mid-block crosswalks requested by the Village were refused by Nassau County until the Village can demonstrate enough pedestrian traffic to warrant them in the County's estimation. To accompany the mid-block crosswalks, the Village had also wanted new signal timing to further slow the traffic. Until the pedestrian traffic dramatically increases, these plans are shelved. Members of the Board and Commission argued that without all of these elements working in concert that they were concerned about the safety of a driver exiting a vehicle on the driver's side in a parallel parking spot without the slowed traffic. Also, Smith stated that he felt the lanes were too narrow on Franklin Avenue to safely provide enough space for a driver to emerge from a vehicle as well as simply parallel park on this street. He said that Mineola Boulevard where it becomes one lane after the bridge, has enough space, but that unless the proposal included transforming the street into this configuration, which the County wouldn't allow, he feels this seems too dangerous.

In the proposal for Franklin Avenue's beautification submitted to the Village by Kuhl's office in August of 1997 it states, "In between intersections we would explore the prescribed option for the installation of layby parking and its positive or negative impact on the streetscape. We would also propose to develop an option without the layby parking to explore what opportunities the utilization of the wide sidewalks might provide in creating dynamic 'people spaces' or outdoor facilities to help 'energize' the street." Some argue that the trustees had decided for layby parking before the proposal was ever submitted and have questioned why the proposal without layby parking was never made available for inspection by the residents.

As Smith was responding to Schoelle, indicating his apparent feelings of futility in the situation, several audience members whispered about the irony of the proposal of 1997 having stated, "We would also assume that the Planning Commission and Architectural Design Review Board would have input in this effort" as they were merely given what was essentially a courtesy presentation which Smith characterized as after it was already a done deal. The EPOA has voiced its concerns in the last two months about the installation of layby parking and invited the other three POAs to meet with them as well as Kuhl, Schoelle, and Trustee Asselta to meet with them. The POAs have cited the same proposal which states, "In addition to acceptance from the Inc. Village of Garden City and its Board of Trustees, it will be critical to obtain consensus and support from the Chamber of Commerce, POA's, Historical Society, Business Planning Coalition, Village and County Agencies and all other community organizations with a vested interest in the success of this project" to help demonstrate their belief that their concerns should be addressed before the Village "signs-off" on the plans with layby parking.

With the construction to begin this summer and the approval by the Board of Trustees of the conceptual designs, which included layby parking, it is the general consensus impression of the POAs, residents and members of the ADRB and Planning Commission that despite reservations on their part, that the layby parking is already a definitive plan, even if not officially termed as such. Concerns about layby parking were raised by the Planning Commission as early as a Jan. 23 letter from the Commission to the Board of Trustees. In fact, Smith had raised the issue of lack of response from the Board of Trustees to Planning Commission correspondence with a reference to a letter of over a month ago about the St. Mary's property now to be demolished and carved into plots for housing. The Board of Trustees has yet to respond to the letter.

All residents concerned about layby parking or any other Village issue are encouraged to attend the Thursday, June 4 Board of Trustees meeting to be held in the Board Room on the second floor in Village Hall at 8 p.m. All residents have an opportunity to be heard by the board on agenda items before the business of the meeting begins and then on any topic before the meeting is adjourned.