pages: TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-04-23 | 4 | initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents. Given that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time parking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time on-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support the Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the street. Commissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat trailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he had not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park those large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied that there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and there were some time limits as well. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough width to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied that it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in width. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet. Open public comment Marc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking parking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was needed, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the Fire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to that determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the Code should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street, and noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking designation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there, and the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then he believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas originated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming 1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet would yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at least mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other vehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church parkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up two to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not have a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing and supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than supervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would help supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give the appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet would be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass. Edith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their Transportation Commission Page 4 of 15 04/23/08 Minutes | TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf |