Parking on Spring, Magnolia, Tarpon, . . .

Chairman Quam, et al.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.

Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.

Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.

Parallel Parking on Pine

Chairman Quam,

I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?

I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.

I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.