Admin Order 58-10-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUNA Parking Zone Appeal June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 9 The City Traffic Engineer has opined that permit fees and parking violation fines pay for the establishment of the residential permit parking zone. The standard is that the Traffic Engineer must consider the above — listed factors. Based upon the testimony offered and the June 1, 2011 memorandum from the Traffic Engineer, I must conclude that these _factors were considered in his decision to. impose residential permit parking through the adoption of Administrative Rule 58- 10-17. 3. Failure to establish the zone would create a hardship for residents in the area or contribute to traffic congestion in the area. For the most part, opponents and proponents of Administrative Order 58 -10 -17 agree that most SUNA residents that live in close proximity to unregulated parking spaces experience traffic congestion during workweek mornings and, to a lesser degree, during the day. They also seem to agree that the residential permit parking zone will reduce traffic congestion in the SUNA. The question of whether the presence of unregulated parking spaces creates a hardship largely depends upon the individual situation of the resident. For instance, those residents who have long driveways and adequate on —site parking are less inconvenienced than those who find it necessary to park in the street. It appears from the feedback received from the July 2010 flyers that residents experiencing some hardship from the presence of unregulated parking outnumber those who do not by a ratio of two to one. It is clear from. the experience gained through the implementation of the residential permit parking zone in other areas around the University that the imposition of the zone will remove existing hardships for a majority of residents and lessen existing traffic congestion in the area. The appellants do not feel that unregulated parking adjacent to their properties constitutes a hardship. Testimony from Appellant Sheryl Engelbert was that if forced to choose between unregulated parking and two —hour parking, she should would select the former situation. The Engelbert's house takes access onto East 22 Avenue and prior to the adoption of Administrative Rule 58- 10 -17, an unregulated parking area fronted their house. I do not believe that the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude that failure to impose the residential permit parking zone along this portion of East 22 Avenue would create a hardship for the resident's in this area, or the Engelberts in specific, or significantly contribute to traffic congestion. The Appellant Greg Bryant owns two properties at the southeast corner of the intersection of East 22 Avenue and Alder Street. Prior to the adoption of Administrative Rule 58- 10-17, an unregulated parking area was located in front of these two properties. As with the Engelbert appeal, I do not believe that the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude that failure to impose the