HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated October 12, 1999 old c �'
Item # a1
Date: October 2, 1999
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: DESIGNATING PARKING PROHIBITIONS ON EMERALD DRIVE
(JEWEL DRIVE TO GARDEN ROAD)
BACKGROUND:
In August, staff received requests from several residents along Emerald Drive to
designate parking prohibitions due to traffic and parking conditions along a section
between Jewel Drive and Garden Road. These residents reported that due to the area
development and the greater number of parked vehicles along both sides of Emerald
Drive, that traffic conditions had worsened whereby travel widths along the street were
effectively narrowed to a one-lane flow. After reviewing the situation, staff concurred
that this parking situation contributes to safety and congestion problems with the
restricted flow. As a result of the presence of parking along both sides of this 31' wide
street (as many as 17 parked vehicles during evening periods), traffic was restricted to
one-lane or a 15' width. With this situation, conditions exist where motorists are
frequently encountering head-on vehicles in the same lane, and must pull over behind a
parked vehicle in order to allow the other vehicles to pass. This is also a concern since
emergency vehicles as well as CyRide busses (Emerald Drive is a CyRide bus route)
are confronted by these conditions. It should be noted that traffic problems will be
compounded during this upcoming winter season when snow and ice conditions
effectively narrow street widths and make traveling even more hazardous.
As a result of the current parking situation along Emerald Drive, staff notified area
residents along both sides of Emerald Drive (Jewel Drive to Garden Road) about the
concerns and the potential that parking prohibitions may be considered along one side
of Emerald Drive to remedy the current traffic and safety conditions. This was being
considered since the number of parked vehicles along the street would probably not
decrease since development is still ongoing in the area. Residents were also notified
that if parking prohibitions were designated, it did appear that the prohibitions should be
considered along the east side of the street, since the predominant users reside along
the west side of Emerald Drive. By allowing parking on the side of the street where the
predominant users reside, safety and convenience is enhanced since these residents
do not have to cross streets to use their vehicles.
Staff did receive several comments about the proposed parking prohibitions from area
residents and property owners. It was believed by several residents that the real
concern was the on-street parking on Emerald Drive next to Jewel Drive. Since parked
vehicles were frequently next to the intersection, motorists were having difficulty
maneuvering from the Emerald Drive approach. Residents believed that the parking on
both sides of Emerald Drive should be prohibited south to the first driveway from Jewel
Drive, or 120 feet from the intersection. This would alleviate problems and allow
sufficient space at the approach for safe and efficient traffic movements.
CAF — Parking Emerald Drive [Jewel Drive to Garden Road]
October 12, 1999
Page 2
Another concern was raised by John Taylor, 3410 Emerald Drive, who had just moved
into his residence on the east side of the street. He raised the concern about
notification, although he was not residing in his townhouse when the first notice was
distributed on September 3 d. He also raised the issue about whether the east or west
side should have the parking prohibition along Emerald Drive. The east side would
have an additional 5 parking spaces because it has fewer driveways. Staff did meet
with Mr. Taylor and discussed each of his issues outlined in the attached letter. After
discussing the proposal with staff, Mr. Taylor indicated that he was in agreement with
the need for parking control, however, he believed that it would best accommodate his
needs if the parking was allowed on the east side of the street.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Designate parking prohibitions along the east side of Emerald Drive from Jewel
Drive to Garden Road, and along both sides of Emerald Drive 120 feet south of Jewel
Drive.
2. Same as No.1, however, designate parking prohibitions along the west side of
Emerald Drive from Jewel Drive to Garden Road. This would allow parking on the east
side of the street and would generate an additional 5 parking spaces.
3. Direct staff to explore other alternatives.
4. Do nothing.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt alternative
number 1, thereby directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting parking
along the east side of Emerald Drive from Jewel Drive to Garden Road, and along both
sides of Emerald Drive 120 feet south of Jewel Drive.
If Council pursues parking regulations along Emerald Drive, it should be anticipated that
the vehicles using the Emerald Drive on-street parking might relocate to other area
streets. One of these streets is Opal Drive. Opal Drive has almost continuous
driveways along the west side and if the east side of the street develops a parking
problem, any regulations will tacitly prohibit parking along the street.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CAF APPROVAL
SS BK SL
JK7 JP SR
To be sent to
PROPOSED PARKING PROHIBITION
EMERALD DRIVE
05 111 203 215
301
JEWEL R
307 321
LOCATI PROPO
PARKIN PROH BIT 0
0
r J
r W
W
O �
M J
M o
N D
M m O
M �
Ln o Z
o J 3
v ¢ O
LU th cr
> Ld
Ln m:
LU
LL M ICE
o PA�RICIA �R
c0i� o
in w
M U1
O
O
Ln
M
203 211 303
GARDEN RD
10/01/99 FRI 10:37 FAX ( j00
John N_Tavlor
3410 Emerald Drive
• Ames, IA 50010
ft f?g' #fji wi{I Rn{Lii j{F irkssst5;a;�E E(ii h+, +n ,> -1 t.;1t t ;^�t..i F :1 - m
}!3f k t { jt ±Ji� li( :.]?±3 t^�:�K?11 ..., n.. s `T9QR 1 - -
.tjfll�i .- ,I --±.,$3113� E. , 'i .-t....�±i±j t- $$+.rf "��r7i+{ t � +��$,#�{�t� E1 '
IJJ -,#�IC�11t' >• .;;.$,t i±f`y}'�{ --tE�'t :...�1f1�}}1!III,
,-:-+$±3 �,=�I(�J �.��+!
-:r� �$ ,�_ if ,-,isE jt
,. I i lr$E I!�v�I���,�����s'#�`t 1$€��� ��$ ,�}�"`��#lit ���?liti��ltii jj #I# >+E�>�r$I�?E+�E�l;�tEi
� �El _ _..il�iit, y
October 1, 1999
Mr. Scott Logan
515 Clark Avenue
Ames,IA 50010
Dear Scott:
1 am writing to you regarding the alleged"parking problem"on Emerald Drive. Based upon the
correspondence that I have received—you only took the time to gain input from homeowners located
on the West Side of the street. This is not a responsible means for garnering public opinion—
especially not one that should be engaged in,by an Ames city official.
0
Upon reviewing your proposed recommendations,your analysis of the situation is shortsighted and
ultimately bias,for the following reasons. First, of all,your study cannot be statistical) significant.
. y
1,,${El'S1ne you alienated the population that resides along side the East Side of the street. I think that it is
,�E,�i' ";`1�4;,t=1 o 10,1hat these occupants are the ones that are most affected by the decision,but have not been
r+ij?if } " FatSred " to the equation. The only time that they have been contacted has been via your recent
t n
f'I++}b+di i #ti+r€G�TbGkx' telling (
them that they cannot park in front of their new dwellingsWelcome to the
i)#rfrulsr r r s `s+yIts sinb I+Js,,i i
t1+1�I Ilt,t$�.Id rts�rs{7s}r ��" 1�j' �
+!iniv4r r#J{h±{fl,11l� {},�I i I,I#st,fs4 PS}ari�I}41d i1l:iili}r4,tlrjrit
t}I i j s '�j+l�$s#I±R, ��I{#5 a�#1{lI#>A Sf sflir rt.,IsrE r a•;( ,
stated that your study 'proves that the predominant users reside along the Wect Side of
rrjrlf+'SS `;� lrrve." This did not take a rocket scientist. Since September I, 1999,four new families
+E#3�#sal r ,�4''j#?$"` 1i##,r
►��{ moved
+ onto the East Side of the Emerald Drive. Prior to their arrival,the land had been leveled
, , the demolition of the trailer park. Suffice it to say that the predominant users would reside on
# -4t,,S' a of the street,since homes were still being built on the —
. East Side of the streetdue to
. N ' vation/regentrification of the area. 1 know that the city building inspector still has records of
itEti!;}si;ti rN7 �e completion dates so let's not pretend that]eve)of use is a prominent factor in this situation.
Third,the entire impetus for the study was an alleged`parking problem." If parking is the problem
and the 'predominant users reside along the west side of the street;"then why should residents on
the East side of the street be penalized for what the residents on the West side of the street are doing?
This certainly does not build"espirit de corps'or foster a sense of"neighborly relations"within the
communityl Didn't you find it just a little bit ironic that the same people who were complaining
about a parking problem—were the perpetrators themselves(tsk,tsk,tsk)?
Fourth, safety and convenience were cited as two primary concerns. Whose safety? Whose
convenience? In your letter,you stated that "hy allowing parking on the side of the street where the
predominant users reside, safety and convenience is enhanced since these residents do not have to
cross the streets to use their vehicles." What about the new residents on the East side of the street
who have vehicles—do they count? What happens when residents on the East Side of the street
desire to have company stop by or visit? 1s this privilege only reserved for residents on the West Side
of Emerald Drive? To be sure,residents on the West Side of the street would not want our company
parking in front of their homes(on the opposite side of the street) because they have already told you
that"parking is a problem." Furthermore,it would not be safe for guests and their families to have to
walk across the street, either. Now that we have leveled the playing field,by considering both sides
ofthe equation,it seems as if we are back to square one.
+�+f;i`' fi}}Itrfi±yjji?if}�ijf,r°.$+Lf;l >i�'";irsrK'±�i'I(Itdl>t -'f.#-'I`i,lr� sijh#?1ij3f�i -j�.,VC�-}jai
I#r }i li±�lfjljy I`I91tr��lEi±i r}§!Ef r!liyzksr.l±;$r[I1�lif!±n#'1=;!U!5i11#jt }ul iff II�r �Ijr ir,l,-PS4 eiPt 1 flu
I» }is sl,�r {{II(rit tuil3+Iflflt{ #jrfn3i[di,±, i$}tl J!�,�say [#ijEljhjlih'S r j ±3f$I+fr#s r 33j il#tf 3 I7]1jliEfk +; 1
;+ Z #jrSflrl}Str+u,s,g iJlr if u,rq,r+ ,3V 11j�ii{ijilliiSlCrl3tnrtl+i1±±V?���ry-I !ljit zUti+ri;}Ilii;+ii+iGt349?i fir.t'ttl
r(I ��(�±,etGtsr'iys!°.'}:r � �l'fr"t' Sj��}2 f?lat�i��,,,, �r ti��ff �1 ft4c�,r�'�+'-i �•E i�i fEif�.G
i 4+1$� .E,,�.s:�-;�.r+Y'`',�lZtlitr i�,���rE,��,: t �tiSiEKft;rpnxi✓is'i�E'�'I'I�1+4!s�is�sir# +t ii,l;,�!3"��+u�ff.�, `+�+,3'ltzs%i
c�ij'11j+�lszw:t�iS1:�1S�lUst#;c�i�sr�-�,_•aa�;���#��:�i�#i��iitisll�uiau�ifsiip ;,;a t,E�i'�rerU�i��e���`�;,fi�l�,�i���f��?����!�t�
10/01/99 FRI 10:38 FAX
October 1, 1999
Page 2
My concern as an area resident is that people travel in excess of 40mph on Emerald Drive to the
intersection of Jewel,in order to get to work,in the morning. Could this be the reason that "the 31'
wide street is narrowed to one lane or a 15'width"is a recurring problem? How fast should other
area residents"expect to be able to travel down Emerald Drive? it seems to me that this is a more
pressing issue. 1 have owned property in the State of Iowa as well as other states and I have never
heard of people complaining about traffic congestion in a residential neighborhood that was not a
main thoroughfare. Emerald Drive does not warrant this much attention,unless of course,it is
someone's personal agenda.
If,as you say, "motorists frequently encounter head-on vehicles in the same lane, and must stop and
pull over next to a parked vehicle in order to allow another vehicle to pass"I say that 10-20 seconds
never hurt or significantly delayed anyone. My child and other children might be playing nearby-.-.-
engaging in fun-filled youthful exuberance- Emerald Drive is not the Talladega 500 and is not a
conduit connecting to the"on ramp"of a freeway_ People live here,children play here and people
park here—just like every other residential street in the United States of America. If.motorists are
concerned about the ebb and the flow of traffic then they have every right to head one block north
and travel along South Duff.
Y
1 thought it was ironic that you attempted to appeal to the"affective domain"by talking about
possible delays to Cy-Ride and other Emergency Vehicles_ First of all,we all know that the'`Yellow
Route"travels every 30 minutes to this location during the day and every 33-35 minutes during the
evening_ Clearly,this is not a main thoroughfare for Cy-Ride and it is only due to the increased
rental property to students that the Yellow route has been expanded over the past five years.
Secondly,with regard to emergency vehicles,everyone possessing a valid driver's license knows that
they must pull over and yield the"right of way"to such vehicles. Enough said!
With regard to your statement reading "of coarse, as we head into the fall and winter season.
problems will compound with the snow and ice surface conditions that effectively narrow street
widths and makes traveling even more hazardous,"--everyone on the street is aware of snow removal
routes and has no trouble complying with them without additional"regulations"imposed by the
Public Works Department. By the way,the word coarse should be spelled as course,and the word
makes should be changed to make--two minor oversights in your letter that can be corrected via spell
and grammar checking)_
Where do area residents and the City of Ames go from here? The bottom line is that residents on the
West Side of the street are going to have to"grow up"and accept change along with everyone else in
the area. They cannot be permitted to`push around"their new neighbors under the guise of traffic
concerns or parking problems. To be sure,they are still irate about changes in zoning that pennits
rental property in residential areas. Let's not waste everyone's time and get to the heats of the matter.
Some people never give up---cven when they are defeated. Let's put this issue to rest for good, and
stop exacerbating the problem with whimsical studies and political agendas. My recommendation to
the Ames City Council on October 12, 1.999 is to maintain the status quo—until a valid and reliable
assessment can be completed regarding the situation. To do otherwise is an abuse of power,a
travesty of justice and an example of over-regulation by City Government. It seems that what we
need in this era of big government is some"regulatory relief"
Sincerely,
Jo N. Taylor,M.A.
Resident,3410 Emerald ve
cc: Sheila Lundt