Stella Sellner E 5th St, Frederick
I am writing to give my comments after reading the Downtown Frederick Streetscape Study. I am very concerned about what is proposed for the existing trees in the study area. We know that street trees are important in urban areas to mitigate heat island effects, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air, soil, and water quality, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, and promote overall well being. The larger the tree, the bigger these benefits are. Looking at the Existing Trees Diagram on page 22 of the report, there are approximately 220 trees in the study area. Only those noted with a green dot are being considered to remain. The report proposes removing street trees that are inconveniently located (at pinch points) or in poor health and replacing them, hopefully 1:1, in study recommended locations. Only approximately 5% of the total trees in the area are in poor condition. The majority of the trees proposed to be removed appear to be in good health. With these recommendations, we will lose 72% of the existing large trees (biggest dots on the diagram) and 62% of the small-medium sized trees downtown to new plantings. On Market Street, in the core area between Patrick and 3rd St, 46 of the existing 47 trees will be removed and 23 of those are large trees. This does not align with the values of the City. We should be striving to preserve the tree canopy that we have for the benefits it gives the Downtown residents, visitors, and businesses. It is also proposed that some of the tree replacement may have to be done with off-site mitigation. Replacing the trees we have with smaller ones and possibly moving some to other areas of the City will reduce the canopy in the study area. If we are committed to the health of the City and are concerned about the effects of Climate Change that are only going to make temperatures higher in the summer and flooding in the City more frequent, we will preserve the trees we have. Do we really want to spend 6 million dollars (average between low and highest estimates given) for new smaller trees, pits, and planters when we have an established tree canopy?
It is good to know that the Mayor and Board of Aldermen are always looking at ways to enhance the livability and viability of downtown Frederick. However, a study undertaken during a pandemic with emergency procedures in place is unlikely to (and in fact does not) reveal true utilization of the streets or the attendant needs going forward. Here are some thoughts: 1) Defining a “core” within the (purported) study area is not useful as it sets up a (tacit) priority order for addressing the problems/opportunities—with the original study area divided into two zones; 2) the depictions of “existing land use” are weighed heavily in favor of commercial use—for example, maps on p. 12, 14, 16 underrepresent residential use. In fact, the entire study area is predominantly residential (even within the “core” area); and, 3) absent a Small Area Plan for the entire HPO, a multi-million dollar investment in a few downtown streets is unwise—to say the least. I strongly urge the Mayor and Board to table this streetscape study until life returns to normal and then re-visit the project.
K. Sellner, E. 5th Street, Frederick Dear BOA, the DFP Streetscape Study is flawed in several ways but the largest issue is its focus on the Core Area of the immediate downtown. Any future streetscape study must include a Core Area from South Street to 7th Street as the future economic growth of the City is dependent on rebirth of retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential use of buildings from 3rd to 7th. Limiting a Core Area to the current study’s small downtown area is short-sighted and a major failure to businesses and City revenues that could form the streetscape (building-to-building, not curb to curb) of the 3rd to 7th Street area, with upper stories as residential or office space. This would be a highly productive 4 block economic boom for the City, substantially increasing visitor and resident investment in a multitude of business ventures in that area. Other substantial issues with the DFP study is the removal of >80 large trees along the route, counter to all City tree canopy commitments that reduce GHG emissions that drive urban heat island problems, threats to public health, and heat damage to Market Street. Another falsehood is that the 3rd to 7th Street area is residential and the current Core Area business. This is incorrect as stories above the ground floors of the current Core Area are multi-use, including substantial residential use. 3rd to 4th is almost all multi-use that could be revitalized with businesses if the VPRO was enforced. Approximately 1/3 - 1/2 of all buildings beyond are also multi-use with even greater business expansion once the 3rd to 4th Street block re-emerges. A further problem is removing curbs. The City routinely floods with even more frequent events under our new climate. Curbs partially direct that stormwater away from ground floors and basements so greater stormwater control with even larger conveyance systems in curb areas should be the goal, not a curb-less commercial and walking area. In sum, if the downtown area is to experience rehabilitation favorable to downtown businesses, the current DFP Streetscape design is inadequate and very limited in scope, ignoring a large 4 block venue for mass expansion of our commercial district and the revenue that brings in. Let’s not spend valued public resources for partial, inadequate upgrades of our downtown. Be BOLD and move out to 7th in large tree-lined blocks to protect residents, visitors, and impacts from our future climate threats.
My name is Patty Hurwitz, and I am a business owner and property owner in Downtown Frederick. I, along with most downtown retailers, had serious concerns about the extension of the parklets and the resulting loss of parking downtown. Contrary to the report that was given at the last Board meeting regarding that issue, most downtown retailers are opposed to any reduction in parking and traffic flow downtown. Please refer to the many comments opposing the parklets that were posted prior to that meeting. The Streetscape Study aims to continue these restrictions in a permanent way, which will be devastating for our downtown. The Study was not scientifically conducted, and is based on the desires of a small portion of Frederick. Further, there has been no traffic study, and no parking study, to determine the effects of the proposed changes on traffic and parking. I was told that those studies were not part of the Design process. Is this the cart before the horse? I believe those studies are crucial to any decision being made and should be considered before considering a new design. There are so many people opposed to these changes that the city seems to not want to acknowledge. Please consider all the negatives to such a proposal. It looks pretty on paper and may seem "cool", but the traffic and parking nightmare these changes will create are not worth the added benefit to a few restaurants and the limited number of people who like to sit outside to dine. It is not a year round positive, but the negatives will affect the city year round. As soon as the parklets were removed earlier this month, we noticed that all parking spaces were in use and traffic downtown returned to normal. Market and Patrick Streets are too busy and too essential to bringing people downtown; please consider this when deciding to make a change that diminishes the usefulness of those streets to all people (not just a few who would benefit from the closures or reductions). A review of the subject of pedestrian malls shows that most of them have closed down because they were not successful. We already have a pedestrian mall at Carroll Creek that has had limited success; I suggest trying harder to make that one work before creating another one that has so many negative impacts on our downtown, our retailers, shoppers, commercial interests, professionals, and many others. Please consider the wishes of all of downtown before making this drastic decision.
Stella Sellner E 5th St, Frederick
I am writing to give my comments after reading the Downtown Frederick Streetscape Study. I am very concerned about what is proposed for the existing trees in the study area. We know that street trees are important in urban areas to mitigate heat island effects, reduce stormwater runoff, improve air, soil, and water quality, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, and promote overall well being. The larger the tree, the bigger these benefits are. Looking at the Existing Trees Diagram on page 22 of the report, there are approximately 220 trees in the study area. Only those noted with a green dot are being considered to remain. The report proposes removing street trees that are inconveniently located (at pinch points) or in poor health and replacing them, hopefully 1:1, in study recommended locations. Only approximately 5% of the total trees in the area are in poor condition. The majority of the trees proposed to be removed appear to be in good health. With these recommendations, we will lose 72% of the existing large trees (biggest dots on the diagram) and 62% of the small-medium sized trees downtown to new plantings. On Market Street, in the core area between Patrick and 3rd St, 46 of the existing 47 trees will be removed and 23 of those are large trees. This does not align with the values of the City. We should be striving to preserve the tree canopy that we have for the benefits it gives the Downtown residents, visitors, and businesses. It is also proposed that some of the tree replacement may have to be done with off-site mitigation. Replacing the trees we have with smaller ones and possibly moving some to other areas of the City will reduce the canopy in the study area. If we are committed to the health of the City and are concerned about the effects of Climate Change that are only going to make temperatures higher in the summer and flooding in the City more frequent, we will preserve the trees we have. Do we really want to spend 6 million dollars (average between low and highest estimates given) for new smaller trees, pits, and planters when we have an established tree canopy?
It is good to know that the Mayor and Board of Aldermen are always looking at ways to enhance the livability and viability of downtown Frederick. However, a study undertaken during a pandemic with emergency procedures in place is unlikely to (and in fact does not) reveal true utilization of the streets or the attendant needs going forward. Here are some thoughts: 1) Defining a “core” within the (purported) study area is not useful as it sets up a (tacit) priority order for addressing the problems/opportunities—with the original study area divided into two zones; 2) the depictions of “existing land use” are weighed heavily in favor of commercial use—for example, maps on p. 12, 14, 16 underrepresent residential use. In fact, the entire study area is predominantly residential (even within the “core” area); and, 3) absent a Small Area Plan for the entire HPO, a multi-million dollar investment in a few downtown streets is unwise—to say the least. I strongly urge the Mayor and Board to table this streetscape study until life returns to normal and then re-visit the project.
Marge Rosensweig
50 Citizens Way
K. Sellner, E. 5th Street, Frederick Dear BOA, the DFP Streetscape Study is flawed in several ways but the largest issue is its focus on the Core Area of the immediate downtown. Any future streetscape study must include a Core Area from South Street to 7th Street as the future economic growth of the City is dependent on rebirth of retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential use of buildings from 3rd to 7th. Limiting a Core Area to the current study’s small downtown area is short-sighted and a major failure to businesses and City revenues that could form the streetscape (building-to-building, not curb to curb) of the 3rd to 7th Street area, with upper stories as residential or office space. This would be a highly productive 4 block economic boom for the City, substantially increasing visitor and resident investment in a multitude of business ventures in that area. Other substantial issues with the DFP study is the removal of >80 large trees along the route, counter to all City tree canopy commitments that reduce GHG emissions that drive urban heat island problems, threats to public health, and heat damage to Market Street. Another falsehood is that the 3rd to 7th Street area is residential and the current Core Area business. This is incorrect as stories above the ground floors of the current Core Area are multi-use, including substantial residential use. 3rd to 4th is almost all multi-use that could be revitalized with businesses if the VPRO was enforced. Approximately 1/3 - 1/2 of all buildings beyond are also multi-use with even greater business expansion once the 3rd to 4th Street block re-emerges. A further problem is removing curbs. The City routinely floods with even more frequent events under our new climate. Curbs partially direct that stormwater away from ground floors and basements so greater stormwater control with even larger conveyance systems in curb areas should be the goal, not a curb-less commercial and walking area. In sum, if the downtown area is to experience rehabilitation favorable to downtown businesses, the current DFP Streetscape design is inadequate and very limited in scope, ignoring a large 4 block venue for mass expansion of our commercial district and the revenue that brings in. Let’s not spend valued public resources for partial, inadequate upgrades of our downtown. Be BOLD and move out to 7th in large tree-lined blocks to protect residents, visitors, and impacts from our future climate threats.
My name is Patty Hurwitz, and I am a business owner and property owner in Downtown Frederick. I, along with most downtown retailers, had serious concerns about the extension of the parklets and the resulting loss of parking downtown. Contrary to the report that was given at the last Board meeting regarding that issue, most downtown retailers are opposed to any reduction in parking and traffic flow downtown. Please refer to the many comments opposing the parklets that were posted prior to that meeting. The Streetscape Study aims to continue these restrictions in a permanent way, which will be devastating for our downtown. The Study was not scientifically conducted, and is based on the desires of a small portion of Frederick. Further, there has been no traffic study, and no parking study, to determine the effects of the proposed changes on traffic and parking. I was told that those studies were not part of the Design process. Is this the cart before the horse? I believe those studies are crucial to any decision being made and should be considered before considering a new design. There are so many people opposed to these changes that the city seems to not want to acknowledge. Please consider all the negatives to such a proposal. It looks pretty on paper and may seem "cool", but the traffic and parking nightmare these changes will create are not worth the added benefit to a few restaurants and the limited number of people who like to sit outside to dine. It is not a year round positive, but the negatives will affect the city year round. As soon as the parklets were removed earlier this month, we noticed that all parking spaces were in use and traffic downtown returned to normal. Market and Patrick Streets are too busy and too essential to bringing people downtown; please consider this when deciding to make a change that diminishes the usefulness of those streets to all people (not just a few who would benefit from the closures or reductions). A review of the subject of pedestrian malls shows that most of them have closed down because they were not successful. We already have a pedestrian mall at Carroll Creek that has had limited success; I suggest trying harder to make that one work before creating another one that has so many negative impacts on our downtown, our retailers, shoppers, commercial interests, professionals, and many others. Please consider the wishes of all of downtown before making this drastic decision.