5 - Recommendation on the Longwood (Fairview) Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) District
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 13, 2002
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council
regarding the Fairview Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Zone.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT.
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works/Transportation
Michael J. Gardner-Sweeney, Public Works/Transportation Planning & Operations
Molly Winter, Director of the Downtown and University Hill Management Division
Kate Patterson, Downtown and University Hill Management Division/ Parking Services
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Board recommendation to City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: Average start up cost per block face $650 (signs & studies), proposal
includes 11 block faces. Total estimate start up cost $7,150.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to provide the TAB with information concerning the proposed Fairview
Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) zone. This information provides context for Board comment
and citizen input during the public hearing for consideration of the proposal. The Board will be
asked to make a recommendation to Council on the Fairview NPP zone.
BACKGROUND
The NPP program was adopted by the City Council in May 1997 as an improved version of the
Resident Permit Parking (RPP) program. The NPP was designed to improve the balance between
preserving neighborhood character and providing public access to community facilities.
Public Process
Staff received petitions for consideration of an NPP zone from residents of the 3600, 3700, 3800
and 3900 blocks of Longwood Ave (north and south sides) and the 1700 block of Gillaspie Dr
(south side) in March of 2001. [Attachment A, NPP Petitions) The residents requested that the
city address the following issues:
• Residents unable to park in front of their homes, during school hours
• Trash
• Noise/Student behavior
• Safety
1
In response staff hired TransPlan to conducted a parking study in May of 2001. The study found
that the south side of Longwood Ave met the minimum criteria for consideration of a
Neighborhood Permit Parking zone (75% occupancy for four hours). The remaining petitioned
block met the minimum requirement to be added to an existing NPP zone (60% occupancy for
three hours). [Attachment B & C, NPP Regulations & Ordinance]
Staff presented resident representatives with a proposal that included the petitioned blocks of
Longwood Ave, the recommend portions of Greenbriar Blvd. and the south (residential) side of
Gillaspie Dr. Staff proposed replacing the current restriction on 1700 Gillaspie (south) and 3900
Greenbriar Blvd (west) with the NPP. At this time representatives from 1700 Gillaspie Dr opted
to be excluded from the draft proposal. Staff revised the draft proposal to include the petitioned
blocks of Longwood Ave and the recommended portions of Greenbriar Blvd. The existing
restrictions on the 1700 block of Gillaspie and the 3900 block of Greenbriar (west) would remain
the same. The 3900 block would be included in the zone description in order to give residents an
opportunity to purchase resident permits. [Attachment D, March Open House Notice to
Residents]
The draft proposal was then sent out to zone residents, property owners, businesses and
organizations in and around the petition area and a representative of the Boulder Valley School
District (BVSD) and Fairview High School (FHS) for review and comment. An Open House was
held on March 20, 2002 to give residents an opportunity to review the proposal and ask questions.
[Attachment E, Residents Comments] On April 10, 2002 staff met with members of the
Fairview High School Student Council and administrative staff to review the proposal and gather
input. Staff held a second Open House on April 22, 2002 to give all impacted parties an
opportunity to review and comment on the final proposal. [Attachment F, Notes from April 22,
2002 Pubic Meeting]
On May 1, 2002, staff received a petition from the residents of the 3900 block of Greenbriar Blvd
and 4000 and 4020 Greenbriar Blvd (east side). The petitioners requested their block not be
included in the proposal. Staff would not proposal including these blocks against the wishes of
the residents. Therefore the final proposal was changed to exclude this block. [Attachment G,
Greenbriar Blvd Petition]
ANALYSIS
Parking Study
TransPlan was asked to do an analysis of the parking on the petitioned blocks as well as any other
blocks that were observed to be impacted. The parking study was conducted on May 23, 2001
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The information collected is representative of the parking conditions
in the neighborhood on a typical weekday while Fairview High School and Southern Hills Middle
School are on regular class schedules.
2
Parking utilization in the neighborhood was determined by comparing the on-street parking supply
on each block face with the observed parking demand. The occupancy date collected was the
compared to occupancy date collected on June 20, 2001 (a typical weekday while Fairview and
Southern Hills Middle School were not in session). This comparison provided a percentage of
parking utilization by commuters to Fairview High School.
Analysis of the data shows that all of the block faces included in the study area had occupancy of
60 % or greater for at least three hours a day for a typical weekday when school is on a regular
schedule. It should be noted that no illegally parked cars were observed during the study period.
The data also shows that a majority of the parked cars in the study area during the study hours did
not belong to neighborhood residents. This can be seen by comparing the percent occupation
during a typical school day to the percent occupation during a typical non-school day.
Average percent occupancy for all block faces in the study area,
On a typical school day: 73 %
On atypical non-school day: 13%
All block faces that are heavily utilized by Fairview High School for parking during school days
were analyzed in this study. However, many of the block faces, or parts of block faces, do not
have residences along the block face and therefore do not have a need to restrict parking. The
block faces that do not have residences are:
0 Gillaspie Dr, north side: The block face is adjacent to the Fairview High School grounds
and Harlow Platts Park there are no residences on this block face. It should be noted that
the south side of Gillaspie Dr has single-family residences and is signed with "No Parking
restrictions from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. TransPlan recommended that if the decision is
made to implement an NPP program in the Fairview High School area that these restrictive
parking signs on the south side of Gillaspie Dr from Greenbriar Blvd to Kittrell Ct be
replaced with NPP signs as to allow unrestricted parking for residents on the south side of
Gillaspie Dr.
Knox Dr, west side: there is one single-family residence located on the west side of Knox
Dr at the corner of Knox Dr and Grinnell Ave. The rest of the block face borders on
Harlow Platts Park and Fairview High School Grounds.
D Knox Dr, east side: parking is currently restricted during school hours on this block face
adjacent to the Southern Hills Middle School grounds. There are no residences that front
the block face between the Southern Hills Middle School grounds and Ludlow Street.
There are residences south of Ludlow Street. TransPlan recommends that if the decision
is made to implement an NPP program in this area it only be used on Knox Dr only
between Ludlow Street and Grinnell Ave.
3
Greenbriar Blvd, west and north side: the portion of this block face in the study area
borders completely on the Fairview High School grounds. TransPlan recommend that the
NPP not be used on the west and north side of Greenbriar Blvd.
Greenbriar Blvd, east and south side: there are seven single-family residences located on
the south end of this block face within the study area. The rest of the block face boarders
multi-family housing with off-street parking. TransPlan recommends that if an NPP is
established in the Fairview area that NPP on this block face is only used south of the north
property line of 4040 Greenbriar Blvd. The multi-family residences located along the rest
of the block face have available off street parking and the percent occupancy during a non-
school day was never above 13 % along this block face during the study.
[Attachment H, Fairview Parking Study]
Based on input from the residents and the parking study, staff created a draft proposal for an NPP
zone.
Draft Proposal: Zone Characteristics
Time Restriction
A "color-code" restriction on public parking with signs posted throughout the zone that read: Two
Hour parking, One Time Only Per Day, 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, School Days only, In This Zone,
Except by Permit. Resident, Visitor, Business and Commuter permits would be available in
accordance with the NPP Regulations.
The standard limit on short term parking in NPP zones adjacent to schools is two hours, with
enforcement year round. Staff is proposing enforcement during school days only in this zone based
on the fact that the school is the sole source of parking impact on the neighborhood and the low
parking utilization on non-school days, 13%.
Zone Boundaries
The proposed boundaries include the following blocks 3600, 3700, 3800 and 3900 blocks of
Longwood Ave (north and south sides), the 1700 block of Gillaspie Dr (south) and the 3900 block
of Greenbriar, (east and west side) and 4000, 4020 and 4040 Greenbriar Blvd (east side).
This portion of Greenbriar Blvd had not submitted a petition at this time and was being included
in the proposal as a result of the parking study.
4
The residents of 1700 Gillaspie Dr wanted the parking restricted on the non-residential (north)
side of this block. Staff did not propose including this block because the issue of resident access
to on-street parking could be address by changing the current restrictions on the residential (south)
side to NPP restrictions, which would allow parking. The non-residential (north) side serves an
important parking function for non-residents.
Af
q'= Proposed Fairview NPP Zone
{ ( Included in the proposal--pelitione d.
Hlarti')att f'I?hl<3 Fulrv e9 kl igh
fi ~ ~ ~ Incladetl in pmposa F-nct petlticned.
i
Gillaspie South--not included
pateV i Subject of Gillaspie Petition--
- t not incuded In proposal.
Public Review of the draft proposal:
Staff mailed the draft proposal to residents of the area and held "Open Houses" on March 20, and April
22, 2002 to answer questions and receive comments.
The School District is taking a "neutral" position on the issue. Don Orr with the BVSD was given
an opportunity to review the proposed zone, he felt the request for restricting parking on
Longwood Ave was reasonable, but had concerns about the impact of including the north side of
Gillaspie Dr.
Fairview High School Students support the NPP on Longwood Ave.
Residents out side the proposed zone are mixed. Those who live on blocks that are impacted by
the school tend to be opposed to the proposal, because of concerns that it will make the situation
worse. Others residents are opposed in general to restricting public access to on-street parking.
Longwood Ave residents generally supported the proposal. Some would prefer a one-hour restriction
on short-term parking and no commuter permits. Others wanted the boundaries to extend farther up
Longwood Ave. Litter was a major issue for residents that would not be address by this program.
5
Greenbriar Blvd residents (included in zone) are split. Of the nine homes on the east side of Greenbriar
Blvd (3940 to 4040) staff has received comments from only three residents, two are opposed to
inclusion of this block in the proposal, and one is in favor. On May 1, 2002, staff received a petition
from this block requesting that it not be included be included in the proposal. The petition was signed
by 5 of the 9 residents.
Gillaspie Dr residents do not support this proposal because it would replace the current parking
restrictions with the NPP restrictions and allow more parking on the residential (south) side of
1700 Gillaspie Dr (Parking here is currently prohibited Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
during school hours. These restrictions were put into place prior to the existence of the NPP
program to address resident's issues with student parking). The proposal also does not include
the north side of Gillaspie Dr adjacent to FHS grounds and Harlow Platts park. Residents want
the current restrictions on the south side to stay the same and have the NPP restriction applied to
the non-residential (north) side of Gillaspie Dr. Residents stated concerns about the safety of
adding more opportunities for parking on the residential (south) side of Gillaspie.
Safety issues: Steep driveways, speeding, inattentive drivers, dangerous traffic, limited
visibility, safety of driver existing vehicles parked on the south side of Gillaspie Dr,
hazardous conditions at the corner of Gillaspie Dr and Kittrell Ct. There were also concerns
that parking might move to Kittrell Ct where the steep grade can be dangerous in snowy
conditions.
[Attachment I, Map of the Fairview Neighborhood]
Staff Response to Input
NPP proposal - Based on this input staff revised the proposal and excluded the east side of Greenbriar
Blvd.
Trash - Staff contacted both the Parks Department and the principal at Fairview and requested they
increase their efforts to manage the trash in the park and on the school grounds. In addition the
Fairview Student Council is pursuing the Adopt a Road program.
Safety -Staff did an evaluation of the conditions on Gillaspie Dr [Attachment J: Safety Evaluation
of Gillaspie Dr] In addition, staff replaced the signage on the corner of Kittrell Ct and Gillaspie Dr
Displaced Vehicles
Residents outside the proposed zone and the BVSD have expressed concerns about the number of
displaced vehicles, and what impact they will have on the neighborhood. Staff estimates
approximately 32 vehicles displaced from Longwood Ave and additional 15 vehicles from
Greenbriar Blvd. As has happened in other NPP zones some vehicles may move onto other blocks
including, farther up on Longwood Ave, Gillaspie Dr, Grinnell, Hastings, Drew Circle, Toedtli
and Kittrell. Or across the park to Knox Dr and Ludlow Street, blocks that were included in the
study and already have occupancy levels from 60% to 86%. Students will be encouraged to park
on Greenbriar Blvd where there is estimated to be 55 parking spaces.
6
Enforcement
Enforcement of the NPP restrictions requires having an office enter all of the license plates of
vehicles parked in the zone without a permit. After the allotted time, the officer must return renter
the license plates and ticket any vehicles that have been in the zone beyond the posted restriction.
The Parking Control Officers (PCO) are responsible for an enforcement area from Balsm to
Baseline, 3`d Street to 28' Street. To date, all of the NPP zones that have been implemented
within this area and already had regular ongoing enforcement by the Parking Control Officers
(PCO) prior to the implementation of the NPP restrictions. The Police Department (PD) handles
calls from outside this area, and has been responsible for enforcement in the Fairview area. Staff
met with the P.D. to discuss the situation in the Fairview area and the proposed zone. Parking
calls are the lowest priority for the PD and they will be unable to enforce the NPP restrictions.
Neither the PD nor the PCOs have an officer scheduled in the proposed zone on a regular basis.
[Attachment K: Enforcement Area Map]
In response to numerous issues facing the PCO work group, including staff turnover and requests
for additional enforcement in existing NPP zones, staff has been authorized to over hire. The
expectation is that this will give staff the ability to maintain a minimum staff of ten trained officers
to meet the growing demands for enforcement in the 12 existing enforcement zones.
If the proposed Fairview NPP zone where implemented, staff would anticipate that it would be
enforced twice a week in conjunction with an existing NPP zone. This is consistent with the
enforcement of the other NPP zones.
Commuter Permits
NPP Policy on Commuter Permits
The NPP ordinance stipulates that up to four commuter permits may be issued per block face
within an NPP zone to nonresidents up to December 31, 2002. After this date, these permits will
no longer be available within NPP zones, unless re-authorized by city council. Staff is in the
process of gathering public input on the commuter permit program and will prepare a proposal
before the end of the year.
When determining if commuter permits should be made available in an NPP zone, staff uses
utilization surveys of the zone and weighs other factors including neighborhood attributes and
contextual issues that may vary from area-to-area (e.g., the price, proximity and availability of
alternative parking.) In order to provide a minimum level of protection (or "livability standard")
for the neighborhoods the City Council adopted a 25 percent white space standard for all NPP
zones. Staff uses white space level to determine how many commuter permits to make available
on a given block face with a maximum of four commuter permits per block face. If the total
number of parked vehicles results in an average daily occupancy of 75 percent (or greater), no
commuter permits would be available on that block face.
7
Commuter permits are $60.00 per quarter. A commuter permit is issued for a specific block face
and exempts the permitted vehicle from the posted parking restriction. (Commuter permits do not
guarantee a place to park).
The residents have requested that no commuter permits be made available in this zone. Staff
would propose commuter permits be made available in accordance with the ordinance as per the
NPP regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that if TAB is in favor of implementing a Neighborhood Permit Parking zone
in the Fairview neighborhood it should have the following features:
Final Proposal:
• Time limits for public parking
The proposed Fairview NPP zone restrictions on public parking would be in effect Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m.- 4 p.m. (School days only) with a two hour, one-time-only-per-day, color
,-coded parking restriction.
• Permit holders
Permit holders are exempt from the posted parking restriction by purchasing and displaying a
permit for vehicles parked on the street. Resident permits (decals) currently cost $12/year/vehicle.
Each resident may purchase up to two permits for vehicles they own or regularly use. Two
visitors passes (hangtag) are free with the purchase of a resident permit (limit two per household).
• Businesses
Businesses located within a zone may purchase up to three permits for use by its employees for
$75 per permit. Large businesses located in an NPP zone may apply for additional employee
parking permits.
• Zone boundaries
The proposed boundaries include the following blocks 3600, 3700, 3800 and 3900 blocks of
Longwood Ave north and south sides. The 3900 block of Greenbriar Blvd (west) would be
included in the zone description, but the current parking restrictions would not be replaced.
• Implementation schedule
Implementation prior to the start of school September 2002.
The staff recommends an implementation prior the beginning of the fall semester 2002.
8
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED
The board is asked to recommend to the city manager that the zone be established, that it be
established with certain modifications which are within the manager's authority and any adopted
regulations, or that it not be established.
The Board is asked to focus upon the following features of zone design.
• The zone boundaries.
• The time limit restriction, including:
a) The two-hour time limit for public parking and,
b) The time period and days of the week during which the time limit applies,
8 a.m. - 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, school days only.
• The implementation date.
NEXT STEPS
The manager shall provide the city council with the manager's proposal to the board, the board's
recommendation and related comments, the manager's final plan, and the reason for any difference
between the recommendation and the final plan. If the city council does not call up the manager's
final plan at the next schedule meeting on May 21, 2002, the manager may establish the zone. If
the city council calls up the manager's final plan, it shall hold a public hearing on the plan and,
by motion, direct the manager not to establish the zone, or to establish the zone with any
modifications which are within the manager's authority, or to establish the zone in accordance with
the manager's final plan. The manager shall establish the zone approved by regulation, but if the
zone is established after a city council call-up, the manager shall not call for public comment in
the notice of proposed regulation.
Attachments:
Attachment A, NPP Petitions
Attachment B & C, NPP Regulations & Ordinance
Attachment D, March Open House Notice to Residents
Attachment E, Residents Comments
Attachment F, Notes from April 22, 2002 Pubic Meeting
Attachment G, Greenbriar Blvd Petition
Attachment H, Fairview Parking Study
Attachment I, Map of the Fairview Neighborhood
Attachment J: Safety Evaluation of Gillaspie Dr
Attachment K: Enforcement Area Map
9
Attachment A Or
Neighborhood Permit Parking Program
PETITION
I Ire I IeigIibnrhond Permit Parking (NNP) program restrirtinns are primarily intended to
addre.s issues of resident access and use of on-street I,r,•r•,ing in residential areas.
Parking restrictions are not considered and effective or primary means of addressing
other neighborhood issues. Resident permit fees are currently $ 12.00 per vehicle, this
fee may be raise at the direction of the Boulder city council.
1hr undersigned, adult residents, of __G~..dbists•7QP_...p~1L_E_.,,_ L -
^.nf ,pnrt the addition of this block to the _ Neighborhood Permit
1 %,i lkinq zone.
hln,n/IiP: Address: Phone.
444- -
- ~S17-mil r- 4~i2(1[~lL's.°• '~D'
__RLu-I.1_Pf}PKEEZ_ _3~SS LoN" UoOD AUB. 30 3-10 5;Z
_ ~w~ ~-~'0.r~-/ -~-2y-~-_~~~-<~~-o~ Avg "Z~3~'_Y3-lv•,'z
AV1rD (ZE'2^ 381 oLoj- acD Av(- =303 5 3 ryy--
1 39 lo Lar+KwoQD Qil - 3v~ S 9qu7
-C rev ::2~s~ lrn4~tQ Qf? s i
L~ I r d " ZT t- SO y 4 f /
~hYa. 'tom. ° Le ~_v[Q~.dt.~sce. 'So'~~ tl4N- 3t7F,~/'.
~-.P- [ ~~SFftrr,_ 3L G,G L cc,) JL. X03 -49~-f --3~?.~
au
AGENDA rrEM # -PAGE
O
Neighborhood Permit Parking Program
PETITION
The Neighborhood Permit Parking (NNP) program restrictions are primarily intended to
address issues of resident access and use of on-street parking in residential areas.
Parking restrictions are not considered and effective or primary means of addressing
olhrr neighborhood issues. Resident permit fees are currently $12.00 per vehicle, this
fro rnny be raise at the direction of the Boulder city council.
k' 11 IQ I1ndersignad, adult reSidents, Of
r7( We~._}~vF u l _
sr ph nt the au.lilion of this block to the Neighborhood Permit
Parking zone.
h a e: Address: Phc:ne.
30 SV3- 133~-
j~Cl11it/.~` : ~a" i.r ~onrL ~cL- ~✓r;^~vi<_ ~,.s : n. .
/ f} - 7 ~ S i ~C 5 3
~-7~-~,6 ~_,..Y~e~J ✓r . X36 z. 1)-~i~ ~ ~ :rs
3 9 Y 5 LO~~ LL_ Awe o ,a
395 lon~wva~Vqu 303 ~9~ dO
AGEMAMW# PAGE
254 P02 MRR x` '01 1'(:00
FPr.),, PRY. NO. Mar. 21 2001 11:07Rh1 P1
Neig eAit Parking Prograrn
J <7
PETITION
The Neighborhood Permit Parking (NNP) program restrictions are primarily Intended to
address issues of resident access and use of on-street parking in residential areas.
Parking restrictions are not considered an effective or primary means of addressing
other neighborhood issues. Resident permit fees are currently $12.00 per vehicle, this
fee may be raise at the direction of the Boulder city council.
s
We the undersigned, adult residents, of GG~~ ,dam
D' support the addition of this block to the Neighborhood Permit
Parking zone.
a Na e: Address:
303- f'9;- ^
Phone;
r
~lf~rrs~ 1
a...-.A j 1. 1l A S e, a~ y- Lo
r
MPAT TK I WMADMTN1 STV?UBPROMPETMON.WPA
4t.ElVDA!"lWgll PAGE J:.~
ATTACHMENT B
NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING ZONE REGULATIONS
These regulations implement the Neighborhood Parking Permit Zone provisions of Section
2-2-15 and Chapter 4-23, B.R.C. 1981, and are issued under the authority of Subsection 2-2-15(e)
and Sections 4-23-2, 4-23-3, and 4-1-12, B.R.C. 1981.
1. General Guidelines
(a) The Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Program restrictions are primarily intended to
address issues of resident access and use of on-street parking in residential areas. Parking
restrictions are not considered an effective or primary means of addressing other'types of
neighborhood issues.
(b) Permit parking restrictions should not be applied if cheaper, simpler solutions are found.
(c) Permit parking restrictions will only be implemented if the residents affected support the
proposed zone.
(d) The baseline restrictions on parking without a permit in an NPP zone will be no more than
two hours without moving the vehicle from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted. Departures from this baseline may include:
(1) Nightime restrictions which limit all parking to permit holders only during evening
hours.
(2) Saturday restrictions which extend the basic parking restrictions for the zone to
Saturdays.
(3) "Color Code" restrictions. This restriction prohibits a vehicle without a permit
from being parked within such a zone at more than one place and for more than one allowed
period of time. For instance, if a zone allowed rwo hours of parking, a vehicle which had been
parked for two hours or any fraction of two hours could not be parked again anywhere within that
zone during the times that restrictions are in effect on that day. This option might be used if
people were using the zone for Iona term parking by moving the vehicle every two hours.
(4) The beginning and ending time for this restriction may be varied.
(5) The length of time a vehicle without a permit may be parked within a zone may be
decreased or increased from two hours.
K:'ALPF ATW TA-X-',-PP.YTR
r l it4t®: C~AtsE -13
11. Criteria for Assessing Proposed Zone.
(a) In assessing the need for a zone, the type of restrictions that should be applied, the number
of commuter pertrtits to be sold, if any, the zone boundaries, and other details of zone design, the
City Manager, through the Assistant Director of Public Works for Transportation and the Assistant
Director's Traffic Engineer and other staff, will conduct parking surveys tailored to the identified
parking concern within the area under consideration.
(b ) The following general factors may be considered by the staff in deciding whether to pursue
creation or alteration of a zone.
(1) Staff may consider the cost and availability of alternative parking (within the
immediate vicinity of the proposed zone,) and the availability, proximity, and convenience of transit
service.
(2) Staff may consider the extent to which a zone may impact adjacent neighborhoods
and areas, and may recommend implementation of additional measures to mitigate these spillover
parking or displaced parker impacts.
(c) In addition to the factors specified above and in Subsection 2-2-15(b), B.R.C. 1981, the
following are considerations to be used in determining whether to designate an area as a
neighborhood permit parking zone, and what its boundaries shall be:
(1) At least one block face with some residential street frontage should meet these
criteria:
(A) A block face is one side of a street between two adjacent perpendicular
roadways, or a dead end street or cul-de-sac. Where one block face as here defined consists of
two or more blocks under the city addressing system specified at Section 9-3-28„B.R.C. 1981,
it may be deemed to consist of the number of block faces so specified.
(B) The number of legal on-street parking spaces occupied by parked vehicles
on each block face exceeds a 75% occupancy during at least four hours between 9:00 a, m. and
5:00 p.m. of a weekday selected by the traffic engineer.
(C) At least 25% of ou-street parked vehicles during the period of a weekday
selected by the traffic engineer for study are registered to addresses outside of the study area.
(2) If determining which other block faces may be included in the zone, staff may
consider if the following criteria a-re met:
K'.`..LPH.aB'~.'TRiX-VP4.rS'Sl 2 .
I q
(A) They are directly contiguous to the area at (1) above or are indirectly
contiguous through each other, and
(B) The number of legal on-street parking spaces occupied by parked vehicles
on each block face exceeds a 60% occupancy during at least three hours between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on a weekday selected by the traffic engineer, and
(C) The requirements of (1)(C) above are met.
(D) If, in the opinion of the traffic engineer, posted legal restrictions on parking,
including without limitation prohibitions on parking, on any block face render these survey
methods invalid as indicators of the extent of the parking problems -faced by residents or
businesses located on such a block face, the traffic engineer may deem such block face to have
met these criteria if the block face immediately across the street meets the criteria.
(3) The zone as a whole is:
(A) Primarily zoned HR, MR, or LR, or a combination thereof, and block faces
to be included which are not so zoned are primarily used for residential purposes.
(B) Not located across a geographic barrier of a type which would serve to limit
pedestrian movement, including, but not limited to, four lane arterial streets, major arterial streets
which server as a pedestrian barrier, major drainage ways, and major ridges.
(d) Criteria for adding block faces to an existing zone:
(1) Each block face should be contiguous to the existing zone directly or through other
added block faces.
(2) Each added block face should meet the criteria of (c)(2) above.
(3) Addition of the block face will not violate the criteria of (c)(3).
(4) The procedure for adding block faces to an existing zone shall be the same as the
procedure for creating a zone but the request need contain no more than five signatures per block
face or twenty-five signatures, whichever is the lesser number.
(e) If it appears from public testimony that there is no consensus on neighborhood support for
a proposed zone, the manager may require further evaluation aimed at determining whether resident
support for the proposed zone exists.
K.`_a 2FLA'PVATR!X-vPP.YTR 3
(f) Termination, In order to remove a block face from an existing zone at least 60% of the
adult residents on the block face must sign a petition circulated in favor of such removal. No
block face will be removed unless it has been in a zone for two years. If a block face has been
removed, it may not be reincluded in a zone for two years. The manager is not required to
remove any part of a zone if it is not in the public interest to do so. The manager may remove
any part of a zone by following the zone creation process without the requirement of a petition.
in. Criteria for Applying Parking Restrictions within Zones
(a) NPP parking restrictions will be applied area by area, and tailored to the particular needs and
attributes of each zone.
(b) A color-code restriction may be applied in residential areas if the manager believes that a
traditional time limit will not effectively limit long-term parking in that area.
(c) The following guidelines apply to use of nighttime and Saturday parking restrictions:
(1) The manager may exempt certain short-term or once-a-year civic events from
nighttime/Saturday restrictions, including but not limited to events such as the December Lights
Parade, Fall Festival, and the Boulder Creek Festival.
(2)_ Nighttime and weekend restrictions may be imposed in residential areas to address
the parking impacts associated with commercial and business uses or districts, but will not be used
to prohibit public parking in residential areas abutting or adjacent to certain public and community
uses, including but not limited to public schools, public parks, churches and other places of
assembly, Chautauqua and Boulder Mountain Park, other large site parks and Open Space lands
(including trail access points), and trail and greenway corridors.
(3) Staff should undertake a full assessment of potential impacts on affected non-resident
users, including but not limited to an assessment of the availability of alternative parking and the
availability of transit service (proximity, hours and frequency of operation) before the decision to
implement a nighttime restriction. The nighttime restriction should be reconsidered in circumstances
where such impacts cannot be remedied by any reasonable means or at a reasonable cost.
(4) Nighttime restrictions proposed for block faces where daytime commuter permits are
also available will specifically exempt commuter permits from the posted restriction.
(5) Nighttime restrictions will not extend beyond the normal operating hours of any
business located within a two block radius of the proposed restriction.
K.'.aURII'PW\TR~XIIS P.tTR 4
1T1-.'+tt5~lti~.zlt.
IV. Permits.
(a) Applications for neighborhood parking permits shall be made on the attached form.
(b) Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the manager will accept a lease, a vehicle
registration, or a voter registration naming the applicant as proof of residence within the zone if
the document so indicates. The manager may accept other documents of equivalent reliability.
The City Manager may require that leases provide, in addition to a copy of the lease agreement,
a dated rent receipt with the signature of the property owner. Date on receipt must be current
(within three months) of application.
(c) , Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the manager will accept a_notarized letter from
the owner of a business in the zone as proof of employment within the zone. This letter must
indicate the license plate numbers of those vehicles to be included on a business permit and verify
that these vehicles are in the custody of employees of that business.
(d) Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the manager will accept a vehicle title, a vehicle
registration, a vehicle lease, or a notarized statement from the registered owner of the vehicle
stating that the applicant is using the vehicle with the permission of the registered owner, together
with a copy of proof of ownership in the person claiming to be the registered owner, as proof that
the vehicle is lawfully in the custody and control of the applicant. The manager may accept other
documents of equivalent reliability.
V. Display of Permit.
(a) Theneighborhood permit issued by the manager shall be displayed on the lower left-hand
comer of the windshield of the vehicle for which the permit is issued in a position readily visible
from the adjacent lane of travel when the vehicle is parked in the proper position on the right side
of the street.
(b) The zone business permit and: "embedded business," "commuter," "visitor pass," issued
by the manager shall be displayed from the rear view minor attachment inside the permitted
vehicle. If there is no such attachment, the permit shall be displayed on the dash so that the
permit is readily visible through the windshield.
(c) House guest, additional guest, other, and temporary permits shall be displayed in
accordance with the instructions contained on the permit or the application for such permit.
K. ALPHA\PN'TRV( NPP.YTR 5
VI. Additional Guest Permits.
(a) Upon special application the manager may issue additional house guest permits, but not
to exceed thirty days for any one vehicle per permit year. The applicant shall affirm that the
house guest is temporarily residing in the applicant's home as a guest, and is not paying rent. In
determining whether to issue an additional house guest permit the manager shall consider the
purposes of the permit system in determining whether or not granting the permit will be
detrimental to the goals of the permit system.
(b) Additional guest permits may be obtained for use by guests at social gatherings at the
applicant's home. Such gatherings must be entirety unrelated to a home occupation, and must be
of the sort normally associated with residential use. Permits will not be issued for more than
twelve such gatherings in any permit year.
(c) Upon the annual purchase of a resident permit, two visitor's passes will be issued to the
permit holder to be used on a temporary and transferable basis to accommodate visitors, including
without limit health care workers, repairmen, and babysitters, who need access to the residence
of the permit holder. Use of this pass is limited to those visitors whose stay will last longer than
the time limit posted within the permit zone for parking by the general public, but shall not exceed
twenty-four consecutive hours. Use of the pass is valid only while the visitor is on the residential
premises. No more than two such permits will be issued per residence per year. It is the
responsibility-of the permittee to insure that this pass never leaves the zone, and that it is returned
to the permittee at the end of each day of use. Use of the pass also falls under the same
restrictions as those prescribed by Section 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981, and in these regulations.
VII. Basis for Allocating Commuter Permits
Commuter permits, if available within an NPP zone, will be allocated to individuals by a lottery
system, unless some other fair and equitable method of allocation is specified for a specific zone as
part of the zone creation process. Where a lottery is used, it will be held every two years within the
final three months before the end of the two year period for the zone, and no commuter permits will
carry over beyond the end of such two year period. No individual shall have more than one
commuter permit anywhere in the City at any one time. No one who resides within a zone may
receive a commuter permit within that zone.
VIII. Program Monitoring
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-2-15 (f), B.R.C., 1981, the city manager will annually
provide City Council with information in the following areas:
K:'ALPH{PW TR~X. NPP. Y-M 6
( a) The status of the NPP Program in general, including:
(1 ) A report on any new demand for NPP zones, and unforeseen (non-fiscal) impacts of
Program implementation.
(2) A report on Program revenue and expenditures, including how many and where
commuter permits have been sold in each zone.
(3) An examination of the relationship between the NPP Program and parking supply and
demand in adjacent areas of the city, including the cost and availability of adjacent alternative
parking.
(4) The status of other replacement strategies (parking and alternative modes), including:
(A) Estimated increases in alternative modes use.
(B) The advent (provision) of any new transit service (public or private) or alt
modes facilities.
(C) Use of remote lot parking.
(D) The status of new parking structures downtown.
(5) A report on the enforcement ofNPP zones.
(b) The status of specific NPP zones, including:
(1) A report on any significant spill-over parking into peripheral or other areas.
(2) A report on zone restrictions and how well they work to address the identified parking
concerns, including any recommended adjustments.
(3) A report on how many, if any, zone block faces experience parking occupancy
patterns that trigger the requirement to lower the number of commuter permits sold on that block
face as specified in Section 4-23-2 Q), $.R.C., 1981.
These Regulations supersede all previous regulations on the same subject.
Proposed rules approved as to form and legality by the City Attorney's office on
by 4= - ft53t City
K:IALPFi4T TR`.X-`'PP. YTR 7
Attorney.
Proposed regulation appr ved prior to publication by the City Manager
Three copies of proposed rules filed with the Ciry Clerk on <2 5; -77
Date of publication of notice in Daily Camera
Approved by the. City Manager without change after considering public comment
on~ d ~~7
Adopted regulation filed with the City Clerk and effective on :3D)22 7
' n
K\A13 HAIP WATRIY.YP P. YrR
Attachment C
TITLE 2 GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 2 General Administreation 1
Ordinance NO. 5869
2-2-15 Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones.
(a)Restricting parking on streets in certain areas zoned for residential uses primarily to persons
residing within such areas will reduce hazardous traffic conditions, promote traffic safety, and
preserve the safety of children and other pedestrians in those areas; protect those areas from
polluted air, excessive noise, trash, and refuse; protect residents of those areas from unreasonable
burdens in gaining access to their residences; preserve the character of those areas as residential;
promote efficiency in the maintenance of those streets in a clean and safe condition; preserve the
value of the property in those areas; and protect the peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and
welfare of the inhabitants of the city. The city council also finds that, in some cases, residential
streets serve an important parking function for non-residents in the public and commercial life of
the city. Some accommodation for parking by others may be appropriate in these cases.
(b)Upon receipt of a request by twenty-five adult residents of a neighborhood proposing a
neighborhood permit parking zone, the city manager will conduct studies to determine if a
neighborhood permit parking permit zone should be established in that neighborhood, and what
its boundaries should be. The manager may, if the manager concludes it is in the public interest
to do so, initiate this process without any request. The manager may consider, without
limitation, the extent to which parking spaces are occupied during working or other hours, the
extent to which parked vehicles are registered to persons not apparently residing within the
neighborhood, the impact that businesses and facilities located within or without the
neighborhood have upon neighborhood parking within the neighborhood, such other factors as
the manager deems relevant to determine whether parking by non-residents of the neighborhood
substantially impacts the ability of residents of the proposed parking permit zone to park their
vehicles on the streets of the proposed zone with reasonable convenience, and the extent to which
a neighborhood permit parking zone would significantly reduce this impact. The manager shall
also determine the need for reasonable public access to parking in the area, and the manner and
extent that it should be provided, along with the hours and days on which parking restrictions
should apply. No such parking restrictions shall apply on Sundays or holidays.
(c)If the manager determines that establishing a neighborhood permit parking zone is in the
public interest, or that altering a residential parking zone in existence on January 1, 1997, or
created thereafter, is in the public interest, the manager shall prepare a proposal for the zone,
specifying the boundaries, the hours and days on which parking restrictions will apply, and the
provisions, if any, for non-resident permit parking. The manager may hold such public meetings
as deemed advisable to assist the manager in formulating such proposal. The manager shall
present this proposal for the zone to the Transportation Advisory Board. The board, after
S:\CMO\DUHMDP S\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W
PD
including in its normal public notice these features of the manager's plan, shall hold a public
hearing on the manager's proposal, and shall recommend to the manager that the zone be
established, that it be established with certain modifications which are within the manager's
authority under this code and any adopted regulations, or that it not be established. The manager
shall, within thirty days of the board's recommendation, provide the city council with the
manager's proposal to the board, the board's recommendation and related comments, the
manager's final plan, and the reason for any difference between the recommendation and the final
plan. If the city council does not call up the manager's final plan within thirty days, the manager
may establish the zone. If the city council calls up the manager's final plan, it shall hold a public
hearing on the plan and, by motion, direct the manager not to establish the zone, or to establish
the zone with any modifications which are within the manager's authority, or to establish the
zone in accordance with the manager's final plan. The manager shall establish the zone approved
by regulation, but if the zone is established after a city council call-up, the manager shall not call
for public comment in the notice of proposed regulation.
(d)Upon establishment of a zone, the manager shall, subject to the availability of funds
appropriated for the purpose, install the necessary traffic control devices within the zone and
issue neighborhood parking zone permits pursuant to Chanter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone
Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
(e)The manager may by regulation prescribe additional standards, not inconsistent with those set
out in this section, which must be met before the manager designates a neighborhood permit
parking zone, or adds or deletes territory from an established zone. The manager may issue
regulations governing the issuance and use of neighborhood parking permits not inconsistent
with Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
(f)The city manager shall monitor the program on a regular basis and annually provide the city
council with a report on the neighborhood permit parking program generally, including its
relationship to parking supply and demand in adjacent areas of the city and the status of zone
block faces under Subsection 4-23-2, B.R.C. 1981. The details of the monitoring effort shall be
contained in administrative regulations promulgated by the city manager pursuant to Chapter 1-4,
"Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance Nos. 4966 (1986); 5869 (1997).
4-20-49 Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee.
(a)A zone resident applying for a neighborhood parking permit shall pay $12.00 for each permit
or renewal thereof.
(b)A business applying for a neighborhood parking permit for employees shall pay $75.00 for
each permit or renewal thereof.
(c)An individual who does not reside within the zone applying for a neighborhood parking
permit, if permitted in the zone, shall pay $45.00 in 1997 and 1998, $52.50 in 1999, and $60.00
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINI ST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W
PD
in the year 2000 for each quarterly permit or renewal thereof.
TITLE 4 LICENSES AND PERMITS
Chapter 23 Neighborhood Parking Zone Permits
Adopted by Ordinance No. 4966. Amended by Ordinance No. 5869.
4-23-1 Legislative Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to set the standards for issuance and administration of
neighborhood parking zone permits.
4-23-2 Permit Issuance.
(a)Upon designation of a neighborhood permit parking zone pursuant to Section 2-2-15,
"Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones," B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall issue parking
permits for vehicles owned by or in the custody of and regularly used by residents of such zone,
by persons employed by a business located within such zone, and, if provided in the zone, by
individual non-residents upon receipt of a completed application therefor and payment of the fees
prescribed in Section 4-20-49, "Neighborhood Parking Permit Fee," B.R.C. 1981. The city
manager may issue non-resident commuter permits up to December 31, 2002, after which date
this permit will no longer be available within neighborhood permit parking zones, unless
re-authorized by the city council before that time.
(b)A vehicle displaying a valid permit issued pursuant to this section may be parked in the zone
specified in the permit without regard to the time limits prescribed for the zone.
(c)No more than two resident permits shall be in effect at any time for any person. No person
shall be deemed a resident of more than one zone, and no more than one permit may be issued
for any one vehicle even if persons residing in different zones share ownership or use.
(d)Resident permits issued under this section shall be specific for a single vehicle, shall not be
transferred, and shall be displayed thereon only as the manager by regulation may prescribe. The
permittee shall remove the permit from the vehicle if the vehicle is sold, leased, or no longer in
the custody of the permittee.
(e) "Business," for the purpose of this chapter, includes non-residential institutions, but does not
include home occupations. Three business employee permits may be in effect at any time for any
business without regard to number of employees or off-street parking. In the alternative, upon
application by the manager of the business, the city manager may issue employee permits to a
business according to the following formula: half of the number of full-time equivalent
employees minus the number of off-street parking spaces under the control of the business at that
location equals the maximum number of employee permits for the business. Full-time equivalent
employees of the business are calculated based upon one such employee for every full forty
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W
PD
n
hours worked at that location by employees of the business within the periods of time in a week
during which the neighborhood permit parking restrictions are in effect. On its application, the
employer shall designate the employee vehicles, not to exceed the number allowed, for which
each permit is valid. A business permit is valid only for the vehicles listed thereon, and shall be
displayed on the vehicle for which the permit is being used only as the manager by regulation
may prescribe.
(f)The manager shall by regulation declare when the permit year shall begin for each
neighborhood parking permit zone. Permits issued based on new applications submitted during
the last month of a permit year shall also be valid for the succeeding permit year. Otherwise there
shall be no proration of the fee.
(g)In considering applications for resident permits, the manager may require proof that the
applicant has a legal right to possession of the premises claimed as a residence. If the manager
has probable cause to believe that the occupancy limitations of Section 9-3.2-8, "Occupancy of
Units," B.R.C. 1981, are being violated, no further permits shall be issued under this section for
the residence in question until the occupancy thereof is brought into compliance.
(h)If the permit or the portion of the vehicle to which a resident permit has been affixed is
damaged such that it must be replaced, the permittee, upon application therefor, shall be issued a
replacement at a prorated cost. The manager may require display of the damaged permit before a
new permit is issued.
(i)No person shall use or display any permit issued under this section in violation of any
provision of this code.
(j)The maximum number of non-resident permits issued on any given block face within a zone
shall be four. In addition, if the manager determines that the average daily percentage of
unoccupied neighborhood parking spaces, on block faces where commuter permits have been
allocated, drops below twenty-five percent for four consecutive hours between the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of any given weekday, then the manager shall reduce the number of
commuter permits by a number estimated to maintain an average daily percentage of unoccupied
neighborhood parking spaces of twenty-five percent.
4-23-3 Guest Permits.
Residents issued a permit pursuant to this chapter may obtain two two-week permits per year for
use by house guests of the permittee. The permit shall be indelibly marked in the space provided
thereon with the date of its first use. The permit shall thereafter be valid only for the succeeding
thirteen consecutive days. The manager may by regulation define the circumstances under which
additional guest permits may be issued in cases of reasonable need consistent with residential use
of the dwelling.
4-23-4 Temporary Permits.
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W
PD
Upon application to the manager, any person licensed or registered as a contractor in the city may
obtain at no cost a reasonable number of temporary permits for the vehicles of the contractor and
the contractor's employees for the period of time that the contractor is engaged in work within a
neighborhood permit parking zone for which a permit has been issued under the provisions of
Title 10, "Structures," B.R.C. 1981.
Ordinance No. 5271 (1990).
4-23-5 Revocation.
The manager, after notice and a hearing as set forth in Section 4-1-10, "Revocation of Licenses,"
B.R.C. 1981, may revoke any permit issued pursuant to this chapter for any of the grounds set
forth therein or on the ground that it has been misused. Revocation shall bar the permittee from
holding any permit under this chapter for a period of one year thereafter.
Ordinance No. 4966 (1986).
7-6-15 Overtime Parking, Signs.
(a)When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, no vehicle shall remain parked for
longer than the time designated thereon on any day except Sundays and holidays.
(b)When a traffic control sign is in place giving notice thereof, within a neighborhood permit
parking zone established pursuant to Section 2-2-15, "Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones,"
B.R.C. 1981, no vehicle shall remain parked for longer than the time specified on the sign unless
a valid permit for that zone, issued pursuant to Chapter 4-23, "Neighborhood Parking Zone
Permits," B.R.C. 1981, is continuously displayed in the proper position on such vehicle. In
addition:
(1)If the sign limits parking within the zone to no more than a specified length of time
within the zone during any specified period of time, then no vehicle shall be parked
anywhere within the zone in violation of that restriction without a proper permit properly
displayed. '
(2)If the sign prohibits parking within the zone, then no vehicle shall be parked within the
zone without a proper permit properly displayed.
Ordinance Nos. 4966 (1986); 5720 (1995); 5869 (1997).
S:\CMO\DUHMDPS\PARKING\NPP\PROGRAM\ADMINIST\DOCUMENT\ORDINANC. W
PD
Attachment D
City of Boulder/Downtown Management Commission/Parking Services
is hosting an Open House
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the
South Boulder Recreation Center, 1360 Gillaspie Drive
Purpose: To give residents an opportunity to review a proposal to establish a Neighborhood Permit
Parking (NPP) zone in the Fairview neighborhood.
The proposal includes the following blocks:
- Proposed Fairview NPP Zone
~
Harlow Plaits Park,, _ Fairvjew~kligh Included in the
~ cFro I prop°=aI-Iephoned.
7 - - Included in Pmpesal nec p.um'ea_
I L• -
Gay ~t• / ,
. ,-vet ~ Gillaspie South-not Included
' `f ~ A' because of axlsling nstriclions.
W "i¢ ( Sublecl of Gillaspie pehinni--
no1 included in pmpasal.
1 ~ -
The 3600, 3700, 3800 and 3900 blocks of Longwood Avenue (North and South sides), the 3900 block
of Greenbriar Boulevard (East and West sides) and 4000 block of Greenbriar Boulevard (East side).
The zone will be designated with a color-code restriction on public parking as defined in the
Neighborhood Permit Parking Program Regulations. Signs will be posted throughout the zone that read:
2 Hour Parking, One Time Only Per bay, 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, School Days only, In This Zone, Except
by Permit. Residents, Embedded Businesses and Commuters may purchase permits. These parking
restrictions do not eliminate on-street parking for those who live outside the zone boundaries, but
limit on-street parking to two hours for vehicles without a permit.
This proposal was developed with input from resident representatives from the petitioned blocks, in
response to a request from residents to restrict on-street parking on portions of Greenbriar
Boulevard and Longwood Avenue.
For more information contact:
City of Boulder DMCA'arking Services -
Attn: Kate Paaerson,
1500 Pearl STE 302
Boulder CO 30302
Pattersanklgci.boulder.eaus.-
(303)413-7300
(If you are unable to attend the Open House and have comments please submit them in writing.)
W
W
Address: In Out
Street
Comments:
Emerson X
I am sending this message in lieu of attending the 4122 meeting on the Fairview parking restrictions plan. I am a Table Mesa resident, but do not live in the
designated area. I do NOT support the plan. I see no reason why public ways should be restricted for use by those persons who happen to own adjacent
property. The curbside parking is obviously needed, and it makes more sense to use the public way than to construct more parking lots or go to other public -
expense to "protect" the neighborhood from high school students. Furthermore, the homes in the area are blessed with driveways and garages. I might ~t
have some sympathy for an area if it were older and lacked private parking amenities. This area does not. Taxpayers support those streets, not individual I,
property owners, and they should remain for public use. This amounts to one more attempt to break the city down into its smallest units ...and to turn a blind
eye to the greater common good. Why have a city structure at all? Are we no more than a collection of disparate neighborhoods, all clamoring to be L•
protected from our fellow Boulderites? This represents another "Balkanization" of the City of Boulder.
Emerson X (part 2) The petition is a silly but mean-spirited waste of city employee time, and taxpayer dollars. There are very many more real problems to deal with in
Boulder.
Endicott Dr X
Thank you for your meeting notice regarding the Proposed Fairview NPP Zone. I plan to attend the meeting, however I wanted to give you my feedback
prior to the meeting. Unless I misunderstand the proposal 1 do not consider it a solution to the problem. Since the proposal does not offer alternative on site
parking at Fairview, the students will simple park in other unrestricted neighborhood areas near Fairview including the South Boulder Recreation Center
where parking is often at a premium for its patrons. In my view the problem is just being moved, not solved, and may compound the traffic congestion.
Although I empathize with those currently effected with student parking, please do not move the problem to other portions of the surrounding neighborhood.
I welcome any comments you may have.
Findlay X
Both of the proposals will do nothing to solve the problem. It will only move the cars to the other streets. Teenagers are very clever about getting around
these types of rules. Gillespie border on a large public property including the HS, Middle school. park and recreation center. Cars frequently overflow on to
many neighborhood streets. Incentives to use other alt modes are not the same as NPP.
Gillaspie X
Seems like every neighborhood feels that they need a no parking zone for whatever reason. Personally, I think ifs ridiculous. We have plentyof city
streets and that is part of what they are for. Citizens can use their own driveway and if they don't have one, I guess they need to get parked first. As in all
of the city we do have some pretty extensive mass transit that anyone can use. Unfortunately, most people, including myself feel that they need a car for
business, etc. but seem to forget that is a part of city living. There are already plenty of restrictions within the City of Boulder for all kinds of parking areas,
and assorted other "menaces". It is really aggravating that we have so many "NIMBYS" with no give and take. I live right across the street from the park
and viele Lake and it is part of the territory. If it was noise after hours, or drivers parking on the lawns that would be unacceptable but some choices in
where we live do come with some sort of price which I feel in this case it is minor.
Gillaspie X Opposed to the proposal. Concerned about the rights of students. Not an appropriate program for this neighborhood. This program just moves the
problem around.
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter.
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter. It is bogus to not restrict parking during school hours on the north side of Gillespie Drive for the benefit of Harlow Platts parking users.
Park users commonly park in the 1500 block of Gillespie Dr. either on the street or in the existing lots.
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter.
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter. ~{u
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter.
Gillaspie X Gillaspie form letter. -
Gillaspie X I am against it because it would divert more cars down Gillaspie and Kittrell making for an even more congested, unsafe area. It has to include Gillespie
and Kittrell to be truly effective.
Gillaspie X Gillaspie form letter.
Gillaspie X
I was at the Open House held on this subject on Tuesday. I live on Gillespie Ave. Obviously, we all have strong opinions on this. I wanted to throw in my 2
cents. I live between Kittrell and Greenbrier, so I am very interested in the South side of Gillespie remaining a No Parking Zone. The steep pitch of the
driveways in the area, the speed the students drive in the area and a chaotic lack of attention while driving all would lead to grave safety problems if there
was parking on both sides of the street while school is in session. I am also interested in the North side of Gillaspie being included in the NPP Zone. Again,
with the pitch of the driveways, any kind of service person who comes to my home must park on the street. While school is in session, there is no
opportunity for them to do so. None of our friends visiting has an opportunity to park on the street. As homeowners, I believe we have a right to at least
equal access to street parking. I believe (from having lived on Mapleton Ave.) that creating a NPP zone on the North side of Gillespie would give us that
equal opportunity.
Gillaspie X
(part 2) 1 don't fully understand why Gillespie has not been included in this proposal. If Longwood becomes NPP and Gillespie does not, we are going to
be in worse shape than we are now, with even more unrestricted student parking. I know that you said no homeowners had petitioned from the North side
- of Gillespie. On the North side of Gillespie there is only a steep grassy hill. We are the homeowners concemed with both sides of Gillaspie. Somewhere -
in this I would also like to mention that I have been threatened, yes, threatened by students who must have thought I did not turn left into my driveway off of
'Gillaspie quickly enough. If I had gotten a license plate number I would have called the police. I only mention this incident to underscore that we aren't
always dealing with mature driving practices in this area. What seems safe in another area is skewed in this case by the population of drivers and also the
steep pitches of the streets and the driveways. O.K., thanks for your attention and your efforts in this matter. Feel free to contact me if necessary.
Gillaspie X
Gillespie form letter. Moving the problem from one location to another is no solution. Either fix it all or do nothing.
Gillaspie X Gillespie form letter.
Gillaspie X The neighborhood needs an NPP. The north side of Gillespie Dr. must be included. To simply move cars off Longwood and onto Gillespie is wrong. We
cannot park in front of our own homes now. Your "solution" will make the problem worse, not better. The entire neighborhood believes it is unsafe to park
on the south side of Gillespie. There will most certainly be a serious accident if you force parking on that side of Gillespie. I know what your safety
engineer says but he is wrong. Don't ignore the good information you are hearing from people in this neighborhood. Do you want to take responsibility for
what will happen? I certainly don't! There is no access to Viele Lake from the south. There is a steep hill there. The concept that parking should not be
restricted adjacent to the south side of the park because it block access makes no sense. People who drive to Viele Lake park in the parking lot. They
don't stumble down the hill. There is a reasonable solution to this issue. It isn't like Goss/Grove where there was no alternative parking. Plenty of parking
exists adjacent to the school on Greenbrier. Why make this difficult? Let's use common sense.
Gillaspie X
Think the north side of Gillaspie should be included in the NPP. We have no place to parking in front of our own homes not to mention service people of
ends. I feel students have ample parking down Greenbrier. I am really against NPP on the south side of Gillespie because of safety concerns.
C~
Gillaspie X
I think if any NPP goes into effect, Gillaspie Dr needs to be included in the initial zone. The south side of the street needs to remain no parking during `
school hours for safety reasons. There is limited visibility (less than 1 block) going with the Gillaspie hill and cars traveling 40+ mph. Parked cars will limit
visibility for all home owners attempting to leave driveways and all people parked on the south side would have difficulty existing there cars safely. What is
now a tolerable parking issue (cars lining N side of Gillaspie for 3-4 blocks) will be increasingly intolerable if the NPP goes into effect without including the N
side of Gillaspie in its perimeters. I strongly vote for the NPP but only with the inclusion of N Gillaspie Dr. I concur with the Kittrell Ct residents' concerns &
believe they need to be listened to & included in the draft proposal.
Gillaspie X Gillaspie form letter. Issues with trash and safety. Preference would be to leave thing as they are.
Gillaspie X Gillaspie form letter. _
Greenbriar X As a 27 year resident of Greenbriar I suggest that you consider more than just parking spaces. Please think "what if it snows?" Greenbriar has become a
one lane street with heavy snows, Longwood is narrow and it slopes to the north. I suggest one side parking on Longwood and the down hill side so cars
will not slide into parked cars and fire trucks could have room to go up the street. Greenbriar and Gillaspie have bus routes on them. I suggested that
restricted parking (8-4 m-f) on Greenbriar and Gillaspie for the above reasons. I do not think permit parking is the answer. Fewer cars is the answer, the
whole town breath easier during this time. Maybe just let the seniors drive.
Greenbriar X
We have lived on Greenbriar Blvd. for 24 years, this is across the street from Fairview. For 24 years kids have been parking in front of our
house and throwing the trash on our yard daily. However, we do not agree to this parking permit in front of our house. The kids have to have a place to
park, since their liberal Boulder parents haven't instilled in them a sense of what it "really means" to be an environmentalist, we have to put up with their
daily trash, But to make this miserable for them everyday and/or to make a parking rule where there is absolutely no need for one is wrong and a
government "in your face" act. Leave us alone and do something else,..., our neighborhood is just fine with intervention.
Greenbriar X
I am opposed to the totally unnecessary Fairview NPP zone. We have lived on the 3900 block of Greenbriar for around 23 years. There is absolutely no
parking problem to solve. Year after year the students are generally no problem whatsoever. I think they should continue to park on our street. We bought
our house knowing that the high school was there. I do not want to be forced to by a $12.00 parking permit. This parking zone will be a big waste of the
taxpayers money. We don't need anything, not government intrusion into our everyday lives, no forced permit cost, no hassling of our teenage children
who drive to school, etc. This is completely unnecessary and anyone that suggests otherwise is probably somewhat thoughtless or selfish.
Greenbriar X
I am very much in favor. If I had known of the 2 petitions, I would have joined. We often have problems with students' cars partially blocking our drive and
causing dangerous traffic situations for us when backing out of our driveway, especially when we move our boat parked by our house. The proposed
parking zone should go as far north on the east side of Greenbriar a the trail mouth of the condo's (north of 4040 Greenbriar property). Please contact me
when decisions are made.
Greenbriar X
I live in the Shanahan Ridge 2 block and find your plan about the 2 hours parking to be acceptable and even fair. However, I would like to request that the
'No Parking' sign directly West to the exit of the 4100 block of townhouse be relocated further west (about two/three lengths of cars away) This is
requested to ensure that the drivers exiting from the 4100 block of Greenbriar onto south Greenbriar have a full and safe view of oncoming cars towards
them. I am often exiting the same time as the Fairview students are busy parking their cars on the East side of Greenbriar. At 8:30 am I am turning left
onto Greenbriar to drop my daughter off at the Mesa Elementary school and find this to be extremely dangerous as I try to guess when the oncoming cars
are speeding down the hill. Having the sign placed further back would remove the'blind spot' one experiences at a hectic time of the day. This experience
repeats itself at 3:00 when I go to pick up my child. The traffic congestion is unfortunate. More so because Boulder offers such wonderful public
transportation alternatives.
Grinnell X No NPP. No Cars. No problem. Regulate the source which is the students not the residents. Educate the students to use alt modes. More government
more Commuting is OK. Educate parents not to purchase cars for students, save What will stop the speed of cars on to non NPP streets. Why do I
and my family need to pay to park? This challenges my friends and family. what if I want to have a family gathering or a wake during the day? Lead by -
I example • Reduce cars. Staff can us alt modes. Do we really need more government. Where does this money go? How many votes/meetings will we
need to have? Who will pay for all the signs and poles? These sign poles are ugly. I do not support the NPP. I do support educating the students about
use.
Hastings X
I would like to comment on the Fairview NPP Zone. I live at Hasting Drive just off of Ludlow. Ludlow's on street parking is full during -
school days. I am concemed that if the NPP zone is approved, parking will be displaced to other locations. It seems that Hastings drive may be the next
closest place to park, thus we could experience a negative impact. When we spoke on the phone you mentioned Fairview's efforts to encourage alternative _
modes. It is not realistic to believe that a teenager with a brand new license and a set of wheels will choose alternative modes. We moved to Hastings ,
from Pine street to avoid traffic issues. Before we bought our home, we observed the traffic patterns, noting that Fairview students did not park on
Hastings. Please do not approve the Fairview NPP Zone and displace traffic to our, and other neighborhood streets.
Hastings X
Opposed to the proposal due to negative impact on Hastings
Juilliard X
Don't create an special NPP zones in this area. Boulder city gov't is already too large and doesn't need to add more duties and cost especially for trivial
-matters such as this. Students have long been parking on these streets if packing by students is inadequate have BVSD add more parking lots (as next
worst solution). Preferable have BVSD admin and FHS students solve this problem by: Mobilize student to take responsibility for cleaning up trash to have
city or BVSD clean up for them sends the wrong message. Teach citizenship principles which start with individual responsibility - teach environmental
responsibility, get out of your cars. Institute carpools, encourage bike & walk get students out of cars. Revise the school day to institute more time on
campus less student movement. open campus is a bad theme which encourages more driving and cars- Driving is a privilege not a right.
Kittrell Ct X
We live on Kittrell Ct and although we were not part of the proposal to have NPP. we can sympathize with our neighbors on Longwood and Gillespie who
have to deal with the impact of FHS driving students. If FHS can't tell students not to drive (as explained by the city rep at the March meeting here) FHS
should not transfer burdens created to the local community without accepting responsibility to solve or help solve problems created. Moreover, since the
city has a strong emphasis to reduce driving where possible, there should be a significant effort to make students more sensitive to the impact of parking on
neighbors and to encourage use of all modes. But because driving seems to be a "rite of passage" we think that this will be a difficult task. The city
contractor study did not detect parking violations, which are in fact frequent, impacting safety in our area. Cars frequently are park in violation areas near
intersections greatly obscuring traffic visibility (For example, moving into Greenbrier from Gillespie).
Kittrell Ct X
These vehicles seem rarely to be given tickets. The city sponsored study by TransPlan suggest parking be allowed (if NPP is approved) on the south side
of Gillespie. Clearly this will create extreme hazards to driving in good, but especially in snow and ice conditions. We often see and sometimes have
cioser calls than anyone would wish for with the situation as it is now. The issues of safety and enforcement surely need to be assessed as part of this
process. On our street partly because of the steep grade and partly because if feeds directly into Gillespie, it is critical for driving down the street in snow
or ice to have a free unencumbered view and room to maneuver. We often, although inching our way to the intersection, slide and need to use the
curbsides for control. A neighbor on our street slid across Gillespie and had to be pulled up from a steep embankment on the way to Veile Lake. The
TranPlan study was sensitive to the impact of NPP upon other streets in the immediate area, but did not consider the element of safely. In conclusion, we
feel that if FHS cannot solve the problem NPP should be placed in effect,
Kittrell Ct X
(part 2) but only after a comprehensive review of safety, enforcement and other street impact issues is included in the decision process.
Kittrell Ct X
Due to hazardous conditions on the corner of Kittrell & Gillaspie I feel there should be no parking on Kittrell Ct. Students who drove up there on a dry day
have shown Poor responsibility in negotiating the comer T junction with Gillespie. Residents need the space for safety reasons. Maybe the church on
Chambers could provide parking for students during the week. Neighbors could help negotiate.
Kittrell Ct X Unless you include Kittrell Court and the other streets around the area all the proposal will do is move the cars off Longwood onto other streets. Then we
have a new Problem. This proposal will not solve the problem only move it.
Kittrell Ct X
We are against the NPP as presently proposed as Kittrell Ct is not included. If the presently proposed NPP is enacted, I am sure that Kittrell will _
immediately become tilled up with high school cars. Kittrell can be a very dangerous street with snow when there are no cars parked on it. Trash trucks
and city sanding trucks often cannot make it up the street as it is too hilly and slick. I am sure that there will be a lot of property damage to cars during the
winter months. I realize there is no problem now, but it should be obvious that there will be. Why not included Kittrell now? Kittrell should be included in
the P. If parking were more restricted in the area, maybe it would encourage more carpooling and RTD use. (Also signed Gillespie form letter).
Kittrell Ct The senior lot at Fairview should be made available to all students.
Longwood X
The 3600-3900 blocks of Longwood Ave. are subject to permit parking. I have seen school students shuttle each other from the 3400 block. For this reason
I recommend that all of Longwood Avenue become permit parking. Our taxes were recently raised $400 and we don't have a decent street. I believe that
part of my tax is to pay for my street and should not have to pay for a permit to park on my own street.
Longwood X We live on Longwood and experience the heavy parking every school day. The proposal to limit parking on the lower part of Longwood would be a very
positive improvement. Including more streets make sense for the same reason.
Longwood X I support the Creation of a Fairview Neighborhood Parking zone as proposed. I think adding Gillespie and possibly Kittrell to the proposal would benefit the
neighborhood as a whole. _
Longwood X
I support this proposal. I will be out of town when the TAB meets in May. We have lived at this address for 31 years. Our 3 children graduated from FHS.
It has only been in the last 2 years that parking has been a problem on Longwood. Since the enrollment at FHS is actually less than it was, the number of
student driven cars has obviously increased a great deal. the increase in the number of student driven cars has had a negative impact on this
neighborhood that is the basis for this proposal. It's the responsibility of FHB to create incentives to use all modes and dis-incentives to drive cars.
Longwood X Yes, I want the permit program to go in place.
Longwood X
I wanted to express my concern about the serious parking problems we have on Longwood Ave. I am very glad to hear the city is taking action and
strongly support the proposed plan. I am also concerned that the Fairview High School students will regularly ignore parking rules and enforcement of the
proposed plan will be a future serious problem. To this end, I suggest you also seriously consider painting marked parking places and put up no littering
signs. For me personally, it is not the fact that students park on our street that is a problem. It is the associated problems of littering, loitering, vandalism
(my neighbor has had his windows broken with rocks over a parking dispute), and unsafe parking practices. Littering, to me, is the most serous problem.
Many nights, or momings I see fast food containers spread on the street and in the lawns of homeowners and this has a serious negative impact on the
quality of life in Boulder. The second most serious problem is unsafe parking conditions.
Longwood X
(part2) Students routinely park cars so dose to other cars (inches or centimeters) that it makes moving a car very difficult especially in adverse winter
weather conditions. I talked to a police officer about this and was told that there is nothing that can be done about cars that park very dose to other cars.
Often, cars are packed in such a way to block fire hydrants and driveways. Parking tickets are issued (thanks to the responsiveness of the City and police
department), but surprisingly (to me anyway), this seems to have little effect on the parking habits of the students. In summary, I strongly support the
parking permit program outlined in your memo. My fear is that it will not solve the problem due to enforcement issues. I suggest the following additional
two steps to help fix the parking problem: 1) paint marked parking spaces, 2) put up no littering signs.
Longwood X
1 support the proposal. In addition to the following: 1) there is not parking available for residents, 2) trash, noise 3) liter 4)student behavior. There are
significant safety issue on Longwood, it is a fairly narrow street and with cars parked on both sides there is not significant space to safely have two cars
(SUV's) meet. Parking dose to driveways (Illegally) causes site distance problems for residents looking out, parking in front fire hydrants, winter there is
not snow removal on Longwood and students park on both sides causes tremendous safety issues also there are speeding issues, students shuttle from
school to Longwood, sometimes they ride on carhoods. I would prefer one hour to get their cars instead of two hours. Add safety issues to Longwood
problem.
Longwood X
I think the proposed zone is a step in the right direction and should be approved at least on a interim basis. I do not, however, think it will solve the problem
because I think it will be too difficult to enforce. As I understand it, the staff for enforcing NPP is small and already working hard. I believe that if the
Fairview zone is not enforced regularly (every day) and repeatedly that the high school students will continue to park in the zone during classes and simply
assume the risk that they will occasionally get a ticket and have to pay a fine. This will not solve the problem that residents on Longwood Ave have filed a
petition about. In my opinion, the only true practical, workable solution is to prohibit all parking in the zone except by permit. Residents could obtain
- permits for themselves, workers, guests, etc. This would be simple to enforce. It seems clear to me and I think this was borne out by the City's studies.that
there is plenty of parking for high school students available all the time on Greenbrier and Chambers. Con't
Longwood X
(part 2) The students would simply have to walk a little farther if they choose to drive to school instead of car pooling or taking the bus. So, a complete
prohibition on non-permit parking within the zone would not unduly inconvenience the high school. I would also like to point out that Greenbriar was
DESIGNED to have parking on both sides of the street and most of the street is not adjacent to single family dwellings so no one is inconvenienced if
students park there. In contrast, Longwood Ave, where I live, was NOT designed to accommodate bumper to bumper parking on both sides of the street,
which is what happens now on every school day. The street is too narrow for that. An unsafe situafion exists. When cars are parked on both sides of the
street, it makes for a very tight fit when you meet an on-coming car. In addition, when I am pulling out of my driveway, it is literally impossible to see traffic
because the parked cars block my view. So I ease my way out into the street, hoping that a car will be able to avoid hitting me. This is dangerous because
the high school students regularly speed up and down the street. It's an accident waiting to happen.
Longwood X
(part 3) Another serious problem created by the high school parking that I think has been overlooked by the City is this. During heavy rains or rapid snow
melt, typically in the spring, Longwood, next to the curbs, becomes a small river because there are no storm sewers on the street. Parked cars obstruct the
flow of this water and, in spots, force it over the curb into adjacent yards. I have seen this happen in my yard. There was nothing I could do to stop
landscaping form being washed away. If multiple high school students cars had not been parked o the street, the water would have stayed in its channel
next to the curb. In the spring of 1999, the effect was so bad that water from the street came into my basement, causing a good bit of damage. I believe
the Cl can be held libel for water damage if it dose not take some corrective action. Another legal issue concerns mail delivery. On Longwood, mailboxes
are placed at the curb and mail delivery is made by vehicle, not foot. I was told by the mailman that it is illegal to park so as to obstruct access to the mail
boxes, yet this happens every school day.
r1r
Longwood X
(part 4) It is a major inconvenience to the postal employees, who apparently have simply been living with the situation over the last few years. Why is this
law not being enforced? Other inconveniences include the fact that there are no places for visitors of any kind to park near my house on school days. The
street is constantly filled with cans, glass, and trash left by the students. The peace and quiet of the neighborhood is disturbed each and every school day
with music blaring from radios, loud voices, tires screeching and doors banging. Ifs the equivalent of disturbing the peace and greatly diminishes the
enjoyment of my property. And for what? So a few high school students will not have to walk maybe 100 yards farther to get to school. In my opinion, the
current situation has got to be changed. 1 do not believe that the proposed NPP will fix the problem, but for goodness sakes, do something!
Longwood X
We live on Longwood Avenue and strongly support permit parking on our street, on the indicated section of Greenbrier Boulevard, if that is acceptable to
those residents, and on the north side of Gillespie Drive, which was petitioned but not included in the current proposal. We attended the open house
Wednesday evening at the South Boulder Recreation Center, voiced our support at that meeting, and now are putting our comments in writing, as you
suggested. We do not currently have a child attending Fairview, but have in the past. We realize there are people outside the petitioned and proposed area
who think that permit packing will simply shift the existing problem to other residential streets. That does not need to be the case. This is a unique situation
differing from other neighborhoods in that there is available parking on Greenbrier, which is not being utilized and which is a non-residential area. There are
residents from both Longwood and Gillespie who have been observing, counting cars on our streets, counting spaces available on Greenbrier, and
documenting the situation many times throughout the past one to two years. There is no question that additional parking is available on Greenbrier and eve
We are not trying to shift an existing problem.
Longwood X
(part 2) We are saying that an alternative exists. If some students still choose to park in other areas or in the recreation center lots instead of on
Greenbrier, we will support you and those areas in dealing with the problem, just as we have been forced to do. Norma attended some of the meetings
last year with the principal of Fairview High School and members of the student council. The people in this neighborhood tried to resolve this problem with
the school before proceeding with our request for permit parking. In the end, school personnel suggested that we get started on the permit process. If
parking on residential streets surrounding Fairview is restricted, Fairview students will be forced to park in the available non-residential areas, as well as
learning to carpool. We were appalled to learn that your current enforcement area extends only to Baseline Road and that could be an important
consideration in deciding whether to approve our request for permit parking. People living south of Baseline in the City of Boulder are residents who pay
the same taxes as people living north of Baseline. We should be entitled to the same neighborhood privileges.
Longwood X
(part 3) We have a parking problem that needs resolving, and permit parking is the only option available to us. New growth in surrounding areas is
creating new problems. We have lived in our house for 26 years, and it is only in the last 3-4 years that parking on our street has become a problem. As
new problems arise, the city needs to help in dealing with them. We ask that you both approve and enforce permit parking in our area.
Longwood X I like it. We need to implement it ASAP with strong enforcement.
Longwood
As a Boulder resident and a homeowner on Longwood Ave, I am writing to voice my support for the proposed parking permit plan for Longwood Ave. Doing
something is preferable to doing nothing, but I still question whether enforcement of this permit plan will become an issue in the future. Fairview High
School students will be quick to catch on if enforcement is light. Without conscientious enforcement of the permit plan, homeowners will be in the same
boat that we are in today. One final comment - if there is anything that can be done about the littering (perhaps installing "No Littering" signs which include
a penalty fee would be sufficient), that would be greatly appreciated.
7
Longwood X
As a resident of the proposed Fairview NPP and a parent of a Fairview Student, I would like to express my strong support for adoption of the program. I
have lived within two blocks of Fairview since 1986 and have seen dramatic increase in vehicular use by high school students during that time. In
particular, it appears that single occupant vehicle use is on the rise. I recognize that some will view this program as just a shifting of the problem to other
parts of the neighborhood, but I disagrees. I believe that if the boundaries of the permit zone are delineated propedy the result will be more even
distribution of accessible parking for all residents in the neighborhood. While I am under no illusion that this program would eliminate parking by students
throughout the neighborhood, nor should it, I believe that it will achieve two primary goals. First, I believe that there will be increased carpooling and
second, there will be increased bus use. Fairview is on two major bus routes and both appear to be underutilized. The one suggestion I have (for RTD) is
to offer a counter-flow Skip route before and after school- perhaps alternating runs.
Longwood X (part 2) As it is, students in Shanahan Ridge and Devils Thumb must transfer at Table Mesa to get to school in the morning - a major disincentive. For
these students, a counter-flow option would be an attractive alternative to driving.
Longwood X
Very Good. The Longwood Ave is especially dangerous. Living is the 3rd house above the Greenbrier intersection has been a severe safety problem for
years and is getting progressively worse. The parking essentially turns it into a one way street during the school year. The lack of respect for the
homeowners shown by trash, moving the trash collection bins to difficult positions to allow for parking and in some cases basically rude behavior lowers
tolerance levels. Obviously this is not all students. Suggest the students be educated about the changes and option to park on lower Greenbrier.
Ludlow X I live on Ludlow at and I have many High School kids park on my street each school day. They leave trash, they speed, they are loud and they block my
driveway. I want to be part of the parking permit plan! We have lived on this block for over 20 years. _
Ludlow X
I am wondering if the root cause of this problem is the high school packers. If so, it is Fairview's problem. Can they do something first to help alleviate the
problem? Perhaps build a parking garage or larger lot for the kids, and charge them to park there. If they can afford these cars, they can pay the parking.
With the current proposal, those parkers will either get the permits or shift to other neighborhoods. I accept and expect that since I also live in the
neighborhood and chose to live near the school. But the solution offered appears to just shift the real problem to another area near the school. I believe
there is a city liaison that works directly with the school district and I hope they are closely involved with this. I feel that the school districts are not held
accountable enough as "neighbors." Understandably, they are exempt from restrictions that the general public is held to. But this is a power that is being
abused in our neighborhood. When Summit Middle School was placed at Southern Hills or when there was major construction at Fairview,
Ludlow X
(part 2) 1 was unable to find anybody in the Building/Planning Dept. who had then or had ever inspected any school construction, including fire inspections!
Why I asked? It just has never been done was the answer, assumed to be exempt. This parking problem is just another example of how both the building
and "neighbor" aspects of having a school in our neighborhood becomes a detriment to the homeowners and neighbors in the immediate vicinity. Yet what
I do with my property and in my house is an issue to the schools and invades on my property rights and privacy. I think getting to the root of the problem is
the answer. In my opinion, it is a lack of accountability on all parts that creates it, and the solution provided is shortsighted.
Ludlow X
Opposed to the proposal. Concerned about increase traffic of students seeking fewer parking spaces. Possible increase parking volume on Ludlow which
already has 59% to 61 % occupancy. Blocks near Southern Hills an area already congested. This is not a good neighbor program. The schools have been
good neighbors and people should appreciate the many benefits of living near a school. These benefits are greater than the occasional incidents with a few
students. Residents should understand the elements that go along with living near a school
1s
Osage X If parking is restricted and my son is not allowed to drive, it will be a significant hardship. He plays baseball and needs to go out to Tanaka Farms (287 and
Lookout) batting practice, going to work at the Y.M.C.A. in Louisville, etc. Places difficulty to car pool. It is difficult for single parents to drop off and pick
up students if parking is restricted.
S. Broadway X
We support the proposed NPP as long as the following conditions apply: 1)Displaced cars must park on Greenbrier Blvd or Chambers but not in our lot. -
2)Displaced cars do not create additional negative impact on neighboring streets such as Gillespie Dr. These streets should have permit parking also.
I really disagree with your NPP zone: unless you are able to provide parking for the students: it just isn't fair to force hardship on them, especially in
Boulder where our policy of "open enrollment" allows students to travel to come to Fairview. This is a REALLY bad idea.
G,ll~sterry-1 I-e11c
City of Boulder DMC/Parking Services
Attn: Kate Patterson
1500 Pearl Suite 302
Boulder, Co. 80302
Re: Proposed Fairview Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) zone
Dear Ms. Patterson,
I do not support the NPP as proposed because it will make matters worse for residents of
Gillaspie Dr. and Kittrell Ct. If the NPP were implemented as proposed, many of the cars
displaced from Longwood and Greenbriar would park in front of our homes on Gillaspie
Dr. and Kittrell Ct. This would impose a greater hardship than that which already exists,
and will do nothing to help the current situation on Gillaspie Dr. The proposed NPP zone
should include Gillaspie Dr.
c ~
Name:
Address: = ? u .6x
Phone:
Y
From: <BeccaK3333@aol.com>
To: <Pattersonk@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 3/3/02 9:04PM
Subject: Npp Zone in Fairview Neighborhood
Dear Ms. Patterson,
March 3, 2002
It has come to my attention that the City of Boulder is proposing to
restrict public parking in the area around Fairview High School, where I am
currently a senior. Having read the annotated version of this proposal found
on the announcement of the March 20 Open House, I truly feel that before the
suggested restrictions are enacted, serious thought must be given to the
ramifications in respect to students who commute to school.
Foremost in my mind, the proposal outlines a plan for "Commuters"-by this
I can only assume "students" is meant-to purchase permits to park on the
streets in question. As you are no doubt aware, many students from other
school districts in Boulder County choose to open enroll at Fairview for a
variety of reasons, including Fairview's excellent International
Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement academic programs.
While senior students who drive to Fairview have the option of purchasing
school-regulated permits to park in the student parking lot, there are also
many junior and underclassmen students who commute to Fairview to be
considered. Fairview has never, to my knowledge, allowed student who are not
seniors to park in the student lot because of space limitations. As anyone
familiar with Fairview's location is aware, this will remain the case
indefinitely as there is no room (barring a parking structure) to expand our
student lot. If the residents living nearby Fairview are bothered by
students parking in front of their houses, only imagine their horror should a
proposal allowing all students access to a new, towering school-owned parking
structure be suggested. But I digress.
My point is that it seems rather retrograde to allow students from other
school districts to open-enroll at Fairview but severely curtail their means
of reaching school. The idea of charging students a fee to use public streets
is a slap in the face of public education. Many students who commute to
school already have car-related fees and such to pay. The majority of my own
friends commute to Fairview each day, and we all pay for our own gas.
Furthermore, several bear the entire financial burden of their cars-gas,
maintenance, insurance, etc.-by holding down jobs in addition to attending an
academically challenging school.
In addition to the fact that most students are already paying fees related to
the use of their cars, Boulder as a whole is a very affluent community, and I
feel this predisposes many to forget the ever-widening gap between the haves
and have-nots (we do actually have people in Boulder who aren't driving
BMWs-for shame!). One more fee added to the burden many carry will not
-3`7
r
change the underlying problem of street congestion and noise, but will
undoubtedly limit poorer students' access to a quality education. Unless I
missed an important announcement, the idea behind public education is still
to provide equal education and academic privileges to all, regardless of
gender, race, sexual orientation, or financial status.
Sincerely,
Rebecca P. Klymkowsky
Attachment F
NPP Public Meeting
4/22/2002
Public Comments
Sophomores from Fairview High School support the restrictions on Longwood.
Student's (483) response to survey administered in homeroom, 1935 students enrolled, approximately 900
vehicles driven, 400 park on Greenbriar, 150 park on Longwood. Over flow on to Kittrell and Grinnell,
Students will not stop driving.
300 Walk/Bus/Bike the rest drive or are driven.
Why hasn't the school regulated student parking?
700 students open enroll at FHS (encourages driving).
School doesn't control how students get to school.
Dismissal is staggered at FHS.
School Transportation Coordinator (BVSD) is working on FHS buss pass program.
Would FHS consider carpool-matching program to reduce single occupancy vehicles?
Will enrollment grow? It is not physically possible at this time.
Safety issues with students shuttling from parking zone farther from school.
It is good to see issue being looked at by students and administration,
Student council picks up trash in the neighborhood.
Students will to work willing with neighbors on trash pick up programs.
Not "cool" to ride the bus.
School should promote alternate modes.
Neighbors can't park in front of their own homes - some are willing to pay for permits, some are not.
Limiting underclassmen driving?
Regulation/Enforcement problems.
School doesn't have plans to build more off street parking.
Parking restrictions could have reverse effects than intended.
Could Greenbriar have diagonal parking?
Where does parking permit money go? How is it spent?
Where does ticket money go?
Thanks for not changing parking restrictions on Gillaspie.
Parking problems may spill over t adjacent streets.
Adequate parking already exists - need to encourage change of habits.
Can students buy parking permits from certain places so homeowners/resident don't have to pay into the
program?
Thanks to the students for participating in the process.
Peer pressure inspires behavior change.
Adpot-a-Street program part of service organization community service.
How does Boulder High's program work? Were students interested?
If Gillaspie becomes NPP, students think kids will park on adjacent streets - laziness.
Students don't think Greenbriar would be an option to absorb overflow parking.
Students negative about restrictions on Gillaspie that may cause strained relations in the neighborhood,
possibly retaliation.
NPP would create traffic hazards on Greebriar- Kids will go out and move cars ever two hours on busy
streets.
Students may move trashcans to park.
Some neighbors do not want another layer of enforcement in the neighborhood.
Thank you to all the participants.
Educate students on alternate modes. Incorporate into learning environment.
Prevent par king spillover to prevent more NPP zones.
Staff/Faculty should set example for students.
Seems like there is not a shortage of parking nearby (SBRC).
Take this back to students to take responsibility in a reasonable way = logic prevails.
Students are willing to find a way to reduce driving.
NPP could be successful of tied with students.
Neighborhood is happy with not changing Gillaspie.
Residents include Gillaspie in NPP and will support if so.
Greenbriar and Chambers should be included in NPP.
Try to figure out a way to provide for driving students.
Neighbors collecting material for spring clean up, van parked on branches - safety hazard.
qua
Trash cans knocked over by irresponsible drivers.
Appreciate student participation in clean ups in the neighborhood.
Need enforcement of related safety issue.
Tonight's meeting demonstrates mixed views; last meeting residents were in support of the NPP on
Gillaspie.
MOLDED DATA LLC 303 454 4177 05!01!02 07:46am P. 001
ATTACHMENT G
4130102
To: Ms. Kate Patterson, Program Administrator
City of Boulder Parking Services
1500 Pearl St. Ste 302
Boulder, CO. 80302
From: Steven LaTourrette-
3950 Greenbrier Blvd
Boulder, CO. 80305-7046
Re: Proposal to create a Neighbor Permit Parking (NPP) zone in the Fairview area
Dear Ms. Patterson,
During the Parking Services 4/22 presentation at Fairview HS, _I asked if it
was possible to omit the 3900 and 4000 blocks of Greenbriar Blvd, from the NPP
proposal. In response to my question, you requested that I provide, by May 1,
wider resident opinion that would support such an exclusion.
In meeting your request, I canvassed my neighbors in the 3900 and 4000 blocks
of Greenbrier Blvd. concerning the current NPP proposal. I then drafted a petition style
document summarizing the various views expressed and re-submitted it to my
neighbors for further discussion.
The results of this action are as follows:
6 polled addresses signed & returned the draft petition.
Those petitions have been included in this fax.
• 2 polled addresses agreed strongly with draft paragraphs #1 & #3 but want to
be involved in a revised version of the parking permit plan.
• 1 polled address has not yet returned the draft petition
3 addresses still need to be polled
Based on the current polling results as well as the expected outcome of future
polling, it seems reasonable for Parking Services to consider the request for
exclusion. As I said at the 4122 meeting, I have great concern for the impact this
proposal will have on Greenbrier traffic safety. That concern has been
unanimously echoed by my neighbors' response to the poll and I'm sure the
remaining addresses will do the same.
Best re ards,
Steve LaTGurrette
MOLDED BATH LLC 303 494 4177 0blwll VC wl;ream r, r
The undersigned Greenbriar Blvd. residents oppose inclusion of the 3900 and
4000 blocks of Greenbriar Blvd. in the proposed Fairview NPP zone for one or
more of the following reasons:
1. An increase in parking volume/congestion will occur when the west side of the
3900 block of Greenbriar' is included in the NPP zone, This location has been
a designated tow away zone between 8 am to 4 pm for the past 10 years.
That designation was established by the City of Boulder Traffic Division due
to demonstrated safety concerns involving parking on both sides of a major
artery i.e., Greenbriar Blvd.
2. An increased safety hazard will be created due to the proposed 2 hr time limit.
This time limit will result in a continual reshuffling of vehicles (particularly
student driven vehicles) to accommodate the time limit. This same
requirement may also prove disruptive to the school environment.
3. Contributing to the hazard listed in #9 are the following factors:
• Traffic volume/speed on Greenbriar- both directions
• Driving skills/judgment of student drivers involved
• Line of sight and road conditions in the blocks concerned
• Greenbriar is a South bound bus line for the Skip commuter service
4. Contrary to the view asserted by Parking Service personnel, the residents
believe that no reduction in parking volume will occuf in these blocks as a
result of the proposal. This assumption is supported by resident experience
derived from an average tenancy of 20 years.
5. Establishment of designated parking spaces within the proposed zone will
encourage and empower drivers to remove city required trash receptacles
from the parking spaces onto driveway accesses. This will result in potential
driveway obstruction and contribute to traffic accidents involving residents
attempting to turn into their driveways from Greenbriar.
& Residents object to the establishment of another government agency
presence and attendant fee structure in their neighborhood. Existing traffic
enforcement agencies have proven historically sufficient to deal with offenses.
7. The status of the 3900 and 4000 block of Greenbriar in the current proposal is
listed as " included in proposal - not petitioned". Citizen input from the
Greenbriar Blvd. blocks in question was not solicited nor included in the initial
proposal and is not contained in the current proposal.
8. The Parking Service focus is demonstrably too narrow to address the greater
needs/concerns of the impacted community.
NAME ADDRESS _ DATE. SIG . ATURE
try - ) .4l ./19e/
2) a
3) 1-e o- r
4) rid3 3 z az
5) fC'w c 102 +r~.-cil7r~u t OZ
6} Sd q za dz-
7) (k
8)
9) '
10)
11)
12)
IIULDtU UAlk LLU dW: 4~4 41// WJ Iflit Q4 YJl:Y02R1 r. ewe
The undersigned Greenbriar Blvd. residents oppose inclusion of the 3900 and
4000 blocks of Greenbriar Blvd. in the proposed Fairview NPP zone for one or
more of the following reasons:
1. An increase in parking volumetcongestion will occur when the west side of the
3900 block of Greenbrier is included in the NPP zone. This location has been
a designated tow away zone between 8 am to 4 pm for the past 10 years.
That designation was established by the City of Boulder Traffic Division due
to demonstrated safety concerns involving parking on both sides of a major
artery i.e., Greenbrier Blvd.
2. An increased safety hazard will be created due to the proposed 2 hr time limit.
This time limit will result in a continual reshuffling of vehicles (particularly
student driven vehicles) to accommodate the time limit. This same
requirement may also prove disruptive Ito the school environment.
3. Contributing to the hazard listed in #9 are the following factors:
• Traffic volume/speed on Greenbrier- both directions
• Driving skills/judgment of student drivers involved
• Line of sight and road conditions in the blocks concerned
• Green briar is a South bound bus line for the Skip commuter service
4. Contrary to the view asserted by Parking Service personnel, the residents
believe that no reduction in parking volume will.occur in these blocks as a
result of the proposal. This assumption is supported by resident experience
derived from an average tenancy of 20 years.
5. Establishment of designated parking spaces within the proposed zone will
encourage and empower drivers to remove city required trash receptacles
from the parking spaces onto driveway accesses. This will result in potential
driveway obstruction and contribute to traffic accidents involving residents
attempting to turn into their driveways from Greenbriar.
6. Residents object to the establishment of another government agency
presence and attendant fee structure in their neighborhood. Existing traffic
enforcement agencies have proven historically sufficient to deal with offenses.
T The status of the 3900 and 4000 block of Greenbriar in the current proposal is
listed as " included in proposal - not petitioned". Citizen input from the
Greenbrier Blvd. blocks in question was not solicited nor included in the initial
proposal and is not contained in the current proposal.
8. The Parking Service focus is demonstrably too narrow to address the greater
needs/concerns of the impacted community.
NAME ADDRESS DATE NATU
1) PIAM z/vtIST M fir. 3998 G q Z5•ez
2) 1 -7-Mi5-, Ai 5 o 1ti z~ v
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
LI
1 luL LHIH "U : OJ 4y 41Zl 0b/01/bL Wl:4bam Y. wwU
The undersigned Greenbriar Blvd. residents oppose inclusion of the 3900 and
4000 blocks of Greenbriar Blvd. in the proposed Fairview NPP zone for one or
more of the following reasons:
1. An increase in parking volume/congestion will occur when the west side of the
3900 block of Greenbriar is included in the NPP zone. This location has been
a designated tow away zone between 8 am to 4 pm for the past 10 years.
That designation was established by the City of Boulder Traffic Division due
to demonstrated safety concerns involving parking on both sides of a major
artery i.e., Greenbriar Blvd.
2. An increased safety hazard will be created due to the proposed 2 hr time limit.
This time limit will result in a continual reshuffling of vehicles (particularly
student driven vehicles) to accommodate the time limit. This same
requirement may also prove disruptive to the school environment.
3.. Contributing to the hazard listed in O are the following factors:
• Traffic volume/speed on Greenbriar- both directions
Driving skillsljudgment of student drivers involved
Line of sight and road conditions in the blocks concerned
• Greenbriar is a South bound bus line for.the Skip commuter service
4. Contrary to the view asserted by Parking Service personnel, the residents
believe that no reduction in parking volume will occur in these blocks as a
result of the proposal. This assumption is supported by resident experience
derived from an average tenancy of 20 years.
5. Establishment of designated parking spaces within the proposed zone will
encourage and empower drivers to remove city required trash receptacles
from the parking spaces onto driveway accesses. This will result in potential
driveway obstruction and contribute to traffic accidents involving residents
attempting to turn into their driveways from Greenbriar.
Residents object to the establishment of another government agency
presence and attendant fee structure in their neighborhood. Existing traffic
enforcement agencies have proven historically sufficient to deal with offenses.
7. The status of the 3900 and 4000 block of Greenbrier in the current proposal is
listed as" included in proposal -not petitioned". Citizen input from the
Greenbriar Blvd. blocks in question was not solicited nor included in the initial
proposal and is not contained in the current proposal.
8. The Parking Service focus is demonstrably too narrow to address the greater
needs/concerns of the impacted community.
NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNATURE
1) ~ dr 3°t o to bvi~r Otoc/. 'f zG v2
2) r 3%bClfftktaac LN •26• z
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Attachment H
IF
MEMORANDUM
1375 Walnut Street, Suite 211, Boulder, CO 803025242 303.4421130 303.442.3139 FAX
TO: Kate Patterson
FROM: Steve Tuttle
DATE: April 26, 2002
RE: Fairview High School Area Neighborhood Permit Parking Study
SEH No. ABOULD0214, TP-01048
TransPlan Associates has completed the data collection and analysis for the Fairview
High School Area Neighborhood Permit Parking (NPP) Study. The following is a
summary of the data collected and the conclusions of our analysis.
The study was conducted on May 23, 2001 between 9:OOAM and S:OOPM. The data
collected is representative of the parking conditions in the neighborhood on typical
weekdays while Fairview High School and Southern Hills Middle School are on regular
class schedules. The City recently requested that Kittrell Court and Greenbriar Blvd.
north of Chambers Dr. be added to the study. Data collection for these roadways was
performed on April 14, 2002. TransPlan also collected data on Teodtli Dr. between
Greenbriar Blvd. and Ludlow St. during this time.
A study of the parking utilization in the neighborhood was conducted by comparing the
on-street parking supply (number of spaces available) of each block face with the
observed parking demand (number of cars parked on-street) for each hour during the
eight-hour study period. The inventory was calculated by surveying each block face in
the study area and then utilizing guidelines provided by the City of Boulder to determine
the number of legal on-street parking spaces available. License plate data for each
parked vehicle was recorded and checked during each hour of the study to determine the
occupancy of the block faces, the time periods in which vehicles were parked, and the
parking duration of each vehicle.
The occupancy data collected on May 23, 2001 (typical weekday while Fairview High
School and Southern Hills Middle School are on regular class schedules) was compared
to occupancy data collected on June 20, 2001 (typical weekday while Fairview High
School and Southern Hills Middle School are not in session). This comparison provides
a percentage of parking utilized by students commuting to Fairview High School.
K. Patterson April 26, 2002
Page 2
The results of the data collection are shown in the following tables and figures.
Figure 1. Block Faces in Study Area: This figure shows the study area and the block
faces that were included in the study.
Table 1. Block Face Identifiers: This table lists each block face in the study area as
defined by its boundaries.
Table 2. Inventory and Occupancy Criteria: This table summarizes the inventory of on-
street parking spaces for each block, vehicle parking duration for each block face, as well
as which blocks meet the NPP Program occupancy criteria of 60% occupied for three or
more hours.
Table 3. Parking Occupancy by Block Face - Typical School Day: This table shows the
current parking patterns for the study area during a typical weekday while Fairview High
School and Southern Hills Middle School are on regular class schedules. Occupancy is
given for each block face and for each of the eight hours of the study, as well as the
average daily occupancy.
Table 4. Parking Occupancy by Block Face - Typical Non-School Day: This table shows
the current parking patterns for the study area during a typical weekday while Fairview
High School and Southern Hills Middle School are not in session. Occupancy is given
for each block face and for each of the eight hours of the study, as well as the average
daily occupancy.
Analysis of the data shows, for the block faces studies in May and June 2001, all of the
block faces in the study area have an occupancy greater than 60% for at least three hours
a day for a typical weekday when Fairview High School and Southern Hills Middle
School are on regular class schedules. From the data, it is clear that the number of spaces
available calculated from the survey using the City's guidelines does not represent a
maximum of the number of vehicles that can actually park on the block faces. It should
be noted that no illegally parked cars were observed during the study periods.
The data also shows that a majority of the parked cars in the study area during the study
hours did not belong to neighborhood residents. This can be seen by comparing the
percent occupation (for the blocks surveyed in May/June 2001) during a typical school
day to the percent occupation during a typical non-school day.
o Average % occupancy for all block faces on a typical school day: 73%
o Average % occupancy for all block faces on a typical non-school day: 13%
Inspection of the percent occupancy for individual study hours further illustrates that
most of the parked cars belonged to school commuters, as the 12:00-1:00 hour during a
typical school day had a 92% occupancy rate for the block faces surveyed in May/June
K. Patterson July 16, 2001
Page 3
2001, while the same hour during a typical non-school day had a 13% occupancy rate for
those block faces.
All block faces that are currently heavily utilized by Fairview High School students for
parking during school days were analyzed in this study. However, many of the block
faces, or parts of block faces, do not have residences along the block face and therefore
do not have a need for restrictive parking. The block faces that do not have residences
are described below:
Gillaspie Drive, north side: there are no residences along this block face. The block face
is adjacent to the Fairview High School grounds and Harlow Platts Park. It should be
noted that the south side of Gillaspie Drive has single-family residences and also has
parking restrictions from 8:OOAM - 4:OOPM. TransPlan recommends that if the City of
Boulder decides to implement an NPP program in the Fairview High School area that
these restrictive parking signs on the south side of Gillaspie Drive from Greenbriar Blvd.
to Kittrell Ct. be replaced with NPP signs so as to allow unrestricted parking for residents
on the south side of Gillaspie Dr. TransPlan also recommends that NPP is not used on
the north side of Gillaspie Drive.
Knox Drive, west side: there is one single-family residence located on the west side of
Knox Drive at the comer of Knox Drive and Grinnell Avenue. The rest of the block face
borders on Harlow Platts Park and the Fairview High School grounds.
Knox Drive, east side: parking is currently restricted during school hours on this block
face adjacent to the Southern Hills Middle School grounds. There are no residences that
front the block face between the Southern Hills Middle School grounds and Ludlow
Street. There are residences south of Ludlow Street. TransPlan recommends that if the
City of Boulder decides to implement an NPP program in the Fairview High School area
that NPP is used on Knox Drive only between Ludlow Street and Grinnell Avenue.
Greenbriar Blvd., west and north side: the portion of this block face in the study area
borders completely on the Fairview High School grounds. TransPlan recommends that if
the City of Boulder decides to implement an NPP program in the Fairview High School
area that NPP is not used on the west and north side of Greenbriar Blvd. These block
faces were added to the study in April 2002 at the request of the City. The data shows
that the currently occupancy on these block faces is 1% to 2%.
Greenbriar Blvd., east and south side: there are seven single-family residences located on
the south end of this block face within the study area. The rest of the block face borders
multi-family housing with off-street parking. TransPlan recommends that if the City of
Boulder decides to implement an NPP program in the Fairview High School area that
NPP on this block face is only used south of the north property line of 4040 Greenbriar
Blvd. as the multi-family residences located along the rest of the block face have
available off street parking and the percent occupancy during a non-school day was never
above 13% along this block face during the study.
K. Patterson July 16, 2001
Page 4
Only the block faces currently affected by student commuters to Fairview High School
were analyzed in this study. If an NPP program is implemented only on the block faces
studied, it is probable that student commuters would simply park outside of the NPP
zones, therefore transplanting the parking burden from one block face to another. This
same affect was seen in the University Hill study area. NPP was implemented
throughout a number of block faces in the area, so commuters simply parked on the
nearest available street. It is recommended that the City of Boulder consider this "spill-
over" issue if the Fairview area becomes part of the NPP program. If an NPP program is
implemented on the block faces analyzed in this study, the following streets would most
likely be affected by an increase in student parking:
o Grinnell Avenue between Gillaspie Drive and Teodtli Drive
o Hastings Drive between Ludlow Street and Teodtli Drive
o Drew Circle
o Teodtli Drive between Greenbriar Boulevard and Grinnell Avenue
o Greenbriar Blvd, north of Chambers Drive and south of Longwood Avenue
o Gillaspie Drive west of Kittrell Court
o Kittrell Court
o Longwood Avenue west of the study area
In October 2001 the City requested that TransPlan evaluate the potential impact of an
NPP restriction along the north side of Gillespie Drive near Fairview High School.
Specifically, it was asked that we determine if there is ample parking vacancy along
Greenbriar Boulevard to accommodate displaced student parking. The May 2001 data
shows that there are approximately 30 student vehicles parked on the north side of
Gillespie near the school which would seek on-street parking elsewhere in the
neighborhood. Based on the recent inventory study and data collection along Greenbriar
Blvd. north of Chambers Dr., there is sufficient parking availability on these block faces
to accommodate this displacement (roughly 55 spaces available on Greenbriar). It is
recommended NPP implementation be considered along Kittrell Ct, if restrictions are
placed on this portion of Gillespie, since it would be expected that students may seek
parking there.
Please call if you have any questions concerning these tables and figures, or would like to
discuss our observations and findings. Thank you.
sgt
Attachments
s:lrol 3WWbs101048%wpWk04 W.."c
oe m
nnn ve.
n~
II:II O
8 12
O7 II ~ - - - O- 13 V Oo
,~n-'\ II ~ InI
Southem Hills I h i 14
UI Mlddle School 15
school O U
hoolo[Padtir~ I I am
l hall m
0
Fairview /
High School
Harlow Platts
Park O~ / /
sch ve
°o creerodar Blvd.
erlwol -
pa"
wt
@1 no
11 55
..amrtmn.
nnw..rr.m.. xw
M
9
n
® LEGEND
r® < ® C - - Block Face in Study Area
Fairview High School Area NPP Study
~O09Tr,grPLE5, Inc. InBLOCK FACES IN THE STUDY AREA
H55
Consulting Engineers Scale 1"=500' Date 4/19/02 Drawn by MSS Job # 01048 Figure 1
TP•01048 Fairview High School Area NPP Study 4/26/02
Block Face Identifiers
Table 1
Block Face Block
Number Street Name / Block Face Address North/ West Boundary South / East Boundary
1 Greenbrier Blvd. / West and North side East driveway of Fairview High School dro -off loop 150' south of Chambers St.
2 Greenbrar Blvd. / East and South side Longwood Ave. driveway at 1452 Greenbrtar Blvd.
3 Gillas ie Dr. / North Side RTD stop 50' west of Kittrell Ct. Greenbrier Blvd.
4 Longwood Ave. / North Side driveway at 3695 Longwood Ave. Greenbrier Blvd.
5 Longwood Ave. / South Side driveway at 3660 Longwood Ave. Greenbrier Blvd.
6 Knox Dr. / East Side Grinnell Ave. Fairview Hi h School rounds
7 Knox Dr. ( West Side Grinnell Ave. Fairview High School grounds
8 Ludlow St. / North Side Knox Dr. Toedtli Dr.
_ 9 _ Ludlow St. / South Side _ Knox Dr. Toedtli Dr.
10 _ Kittrell CU North Side driveway at 3100 Kittrell Ct. Gilles ie Dr.
t t Kittrell Ct./ South Side driveway at 3100 Kittrell Ct. Gillespie Dr.
12-- Toedtli Dr. / East Side Ludlow St. stop si n at Greenbrier intersection
13 Toedtli Dr. West Side driveway across from Ludlow St. stop sign at Greenbrier intersection
14 Greenbriar Blvd. / East Side end of parkin /bike lane at Toedtli intersection driveway at 1452 Greenbrier Blvd.
15 Greenbriar Blvd. / West Side No Parkin sin at Toetli intersection 150' south of Chambers Street
block face iden.xls
TP-01048 Fairview High School Area NPP Study 4/26/02
Inventory and Occupancy Criteria
Table 2
Block Total Total Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles
Face Available Parked Parked 1 Parked 2 Parked 3 Parked 4 Parked 5 Parked 6 Parked 7 Parked 8
Number Block Face Spaces Vehicles hour hours hours hours hours hours hours hours
1 Greenbrier Blvd. / West and North side 74 113 21 19 6 16 8 28 8 7
2 Greenbrier Blvd. / East and South side 89 139 20 22 17 18 14 34 7 7
3 Gillespie Dr. / North Side 30 52 2 14 3 11 5 16 0 1
4 Longwood Ave. / North Side' 19 25 4 4 3 4 4 2 1 3
5 Longwood Ave. / South Side 28 37 9 5 3 2 2 12 2 2
6 Knox Dr. / East Side 15 22 0 7 2 4 2 6 1 0
7 Knox Dr. / West Side 43 60 8 1 8 6 2 25 7 3
8 Ludlow St. / North Side 32 33 4 3 6 5 1 5 0 9
9 Ludlow St. /South Side 35 39 5 10 3 5 1 7 1 7
10 Kittrell Cf. / North Side 24 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
_ 11 Kittrell Cf. / South _Side 29 _ 5 1 _ 2 0 0 0 _ 0 0 2
_ 12- Toedtli Dr. / East Side 9 _ 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
13 Toedtli Dr. / West Side 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
14 Greenbrier Blvd. / East Side 33 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Greenbrier Blvd. / West Side 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 493 547 82 89 51 73 39 135 27 51
The total available spaces on the day of the study for the Longwood Ave. north side block was 5 spaces less than the usual supply due to construction activity in the area
i
I~
inv_occup.xis
TP-01048 Faindaw High Schad Area NPP Study Study 4/26/02
Parking Occupancy by Block Face
Table 3
Hourly Date Collection - T Ical School Da
9-10 10-11 1112 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
Z L .Q Z' B Ti Ti-I > > >
> > > o i` O O m Block Face m w m m m ¢x
1 Greenbrier Vvd. / West and North side 74 74 in 70 95% 68 92°6 70 95 % 64 86% 81 82% 32 43°6 26 38% 79%
2 Greenbnar Blvd. / East and South side 89 92 103% 89 100% 91 102% 89 100% 88 99% 79 89% 28 31% 26 29% 82%
3 Gillespie Dr. / North Side 30 35 T72%23 117% 33 110% 35 117% 34 113% 32 107% 4 13% 3 10% 88%
4 Lon wood AVe./North Side' 19 16 89% 14 74% 75 79% 14 74% 13 BB% $ 26% 7 37% fifi%
5 Longwood Ave. /South Side 28 26 86% 22 79°6 24 86%- 23 82% 21 ]5% 6 21% 7 25% 68%
6 Knox Dr. / Exist Side 15 15 100°6 13 87% 15 100% 13 87% 13 87% 3 20% 3 20% 75%
7 Knox Dr. / West Side 43 45 105 % 43 100% 46 107% 46 107% 42 98% 17 40% 13 30% 88%
8 Ludlow St. / North Side 32 23 72% 24 75% 24 75% 19 59% 21 66% 10 31 % 11 34% 61%
9 Lad. St/South Side 35 26 74% 25 71% 25 71% 23 fifi% 23 66% 9 9 26% 59%
10 KMrell Ct. / North Side 24 1 8% 2 8% 3 13% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 0 0% 6%
11 Kidreil C. / South Side 29 3 10% 4 14% 3 10% 2 7% 2 7% 3 10°6 2 7% 2 d74%.
12 _ Tcedli Dr. / East Side 9 2 22% 2 22% 4 44% 2 22% 2 22°6 2 22% _ 2 22% 3 33% 13 Taedli Dr / West
Side 8 3 38% 2 25% 2 25% _ 2 25% 2 25% 2 25% 2 25% 2 25% 14 Greenbnar Blvd. /Fast Side 33 1 3% 1
3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0 0-A 1 3% 15 Greenbrier &vd. /West Side 25 0 0°6 0 0°6 0 0% 0 IN, 0 0°6
0 0°6 0 096 1 4% Avera Paroant 0--'.panc 84% 93% 88% 92% 86% 82°6 28% 28% Table 4
Hour Dale Collection-T ial Non-Schat)
B 9-10 12-1 4-5
z' 8 B L' ,v" L- a S
is 0
LL
N a
to &am Fam 5 A m A
1 Greenbrer Blvd. / West and North side 74 1 1% 3 4% 8 11% 5%
2 Greenbrar Blvd. / East and South aide 89 12 13% 6 7% 8 9% 10%
3 Gate ie Dr. INGO Side 30 2 7% 2 7% 3 10% 8%
4 Longwood Ave. /North Side- 19 7 37% 7 37% 5 26% 33%
5 Longwood Ave./South Side 28 3 11% 6 21% 4 14% Is%
6 Knox Dr. / East Side 15 0 0'6 0 0% 0 0% 0%
7 Knox Dr / West Side 43 13 30% 7 16% 6 14% 20%
a Lual St / North Side 32 4 13% 4 13°k 5 16% 14%
1~'1 9 Ludlow St. / South Side 35 5 14% 4 11% 7 20% 15%
P15 WA
Average Percent Occupancy 14% 13% 13% 13%
The total ava8able spaces on the days of the studies for the Longwood Ave. north side block was 5 spaces less than the usual supply due to Construction activity in the area
occupanc,45
Attachment J
Gillaspie Drive - NPP Proposal (Safety Analyses)
Some consideration was given to placing "Neighborhood Permit Parking" restrictions on
the south side of Gillaspie Drive, in place of the "No Parking Mon-Fri 8am to 5pm"
signage. Residents in the area expressed concern about parking being allowed during
school hours on the south side of Gillaspie Drive. To address the concern that this
approach would be unsafe, staff performed several operational analyses.
Gillaspie Drive has a street width of approximately 40 feet. The street grade varies
between 4.5 and 7.0 percent. Predominately, staff compared conditions on Gillaspie
Drive with two other roadways with steep grades (Baseline Road near 0 Street and 9th
Street near Baseline Road). These roadways also have steep grades (7.0 percent or
greater), more traffic and less street width while allowing parking on both sides at least
part of the year.
Speeding Traffic: Concern was expressed that considerable speeding would exacerbate
safety concerns with parking on both sides. On April 10th and I Vh, staff conducted a 24-
hour speed classification survey. The data revealed that there were approximately 1,100
vehicles per day on Gillaspie Drive, near Fairview High School and that they were
travelling with an average speed of 24 MPH. The 85th Percentile speed (used to
determine compliance with speed limit) was 28 MPH. These values show speeding but
not at a level that would constitute a serious speeding problem. For instance, these values
would not qualify a street for inclusion in the City's Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
Program.
_Accident History: Staff examined the last three years worth of accidents to determine
whether pertinent trends had been developing. Staff also examined accidents on Baseline
Road and 9th Street during the same time period. The section of Gillaspie Drive between
Kittrell Court and Greenbriar Blvd averaged one accident per year. The sections of 9th
Street and Baseline Road examined averaged less than one accident per year. No
significant accident trend was present on any of the roadways.
Sight Distance: Concern was expressed about how sight distance would be obscured by
parked vehicles on the south side of the street. This was a valid concern. However it was
determined that appropriate placement of "No Parking anytime" signage to protect the
driveways would mitigate this concern.
In summary, no evidence could be found to suggest that it would be unsafe to allow time
restricted parking on the south side of Gillaspie Drive while continuing to allow
unrestricted parking on the north side of the street. Such parking is already allowed
during the evenings and weekends (though few vehicles park on the south side of the
street even when parking is allowed).
JS
i
~
VALMPN`T° RD
j
0
All\
~,AI°Y'("~Y
ARAPA1-r U E V
1
i
f
i
I J
i
I
A ELfNC
i
T-,A,QLE MESA
i
j
i ~
i
r
Parking Enforcement Areas M
Parking enforcement boundaries
i
y UHGID i GREEN BRIAR LVD
Proposed zone
r9l
1
~ 1~