citiCite
FORUMS PHOTOS GROUPS EVENTS WIKI
CREATE ACCOUNT | LOGIN
Mueller Community (change)
Forums
You are NOT logged in.
RSS

Parking Restrictions
All of the following posts have been contributed by citiCite members.
Viewing 11 to 20 of 20 posts ( First Prev 1 2 )
Page Header Image
Forum Navigation

Recent Forum Posts

Upcoming Events
Sorry, but there are no upcoming events.

No Image Available
austinel
Mueller Community

Posts: 58
Joined on September 1st, 2007
untitled topic
by austinel on September 12th, 2007

I read over on the Mueller Yahoo group that some of the narrower yard-house side streets measure eleven feet wide when there is a car on either side. What would that be, about 22 ft wide total? 24?

I imagine that means similar width to the side-streets in older neighborhoods of Austin.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "professional preference"?
 
User Profile Image
ret1ree00
Mueller Community

Posts: 333
Joined on September 7th, 2007
Street Width
by ret1ree00 on September 12th, 2007

My understanding is the residential streets are to be 28 feet face to face on the curb and the alleys 15 feet. I don't know if this holds the same for the connecting streets which also have dedicated bike lanes nor those streets with the bulb outs.
 
User Profile Image
ret1ree00
Mueller Community

Posts: 333
Joined on September 7th, 2007
Additional Street Width Info
by ret1ree00 on September 12th, 2007

The Mueller Design Guide depicts a variety of streets within the entire development.

The Mueller Design Guide does not make a distinction that I can tell for the residential streets (referred to as local neighborhood in the guide) with regard to the lot width.

The residential streets are shown with two parking zones of 7 ft each and a clear roadway of 14 feet. The guide also shows Neighborhood Connecting streets with two 8 ft. parking zones and two 10 ft travel lanes.
 
User Profile Image
ret1ree00
Mueller Community

Posts: 333
Joined on September 7th, 2007
Parking info from Catellus
by ret1ree00 on September 12th, 2007

We received the following message today from Jessica Guerra at Catellus:

Quote:
Thank you for your interest in Mueller and your question regarding
parking on residential streets. I apologize for my delayed response; we finally got an answer from our lawyers regarding this issue. We will be following the community covenants as they are stated now. Street parking is addressed in the community covenants as follows:

Street parking will be allowed for residents' guests for up to 72 hours.
Residents may park on the street for a period up to 30 minutes unless
there is an emergency.

As you may imagine, these guidelines promote clear access for residents through the streets but also permits parking for their visitors and occasional overnight guests. I hope this answers your question and please let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you,
Jessica Guerra
Marketing Administrative Manager
Catellus Development Group
4550 Mueller Blvd.
Austin, TX 78723
Phone: 512-703-9200
Fax: 512-703-9201
jguerra@catellus.com
 
User Profile Image
Kevin Ludlow
Mueller Community

Posts: 582
Joined on August 19th, 2007
untitled topic
by Kevin Ludlow on September 12th, 2007

Well I'm just confused about this one.

I'm still not really sure how they're going to enforce this sort of thing. For example, how could they possibly know it's my girlfriend's car parked four houses down? ...or for that matter, how could they even know it was my car. And they're not private streets, so I'm not sure they can ban them from other people's use?

Are all residents in the community going to be required somehow to have stickers on their cars?

A parking officer MIGHT have the ability to lookup who the car is registered to, but it certainly shouldn't say the address of the where that person lives.

I guess I shouldn't complain, but if they're going to make rules, I'd just like to see them as rules that can be enforced for the good of the place.

This whole parking situation just sounds not very well thought out.
 
User Profile Image
langhugh
Mueller Community

Posts: 1149
Joined on August 18th, 2007
untitled topic
by langhugh on September 12th, 2007

This is regrettable if these rules remain in the HOA.

Functionally, the rule is unreasonable in Mueller. This rule looks as though it was designed for subdivision homes with garages AND parking driveways. There are a variety of reason that the narrow two-car garages (I believe there is 18 inches on either side of the garage door) will not accomdate a two-car family much less a three car family. Full-Siz SUV, storing more than a couple boxes in the garage, conversion of one side of the garage to a workshop or studio to name a few.

Philosophically, it is contradictory to New Urbanist principles. By that, I mean the lack of street parked cars actually has been shown to make life tougher for pedestrians and bicyclists. Cars on empty streets drive faster. Here's a quote from Richard McLaughlin...

"On-street parking is another civilizing component of neighborhood streets. Cars parked to either side of a street's traffic lanes deter high speed traffic, buffer pedestrian activity on sidewalks, and distribute parking evenly throughout the neighborhood. Also, on-street parking reduces the need for parking lots and long driveways. Buildings therefore occupy more buildable lots and help shape continuous neighborhood streets. "

They can't really take away the driveways and forbid on-street parking. McClud's option above is much more reasonable.
 
No Image Available
austinel
Mueller Community

Posts: 58
Joined on September 1st, 2007
untitled topic
by austinel on September 12th, 2007

Yikes.

I was one saying I prefer if people use their garages for parking, and I do, but I certainly don't think it should be a rule "on the books".

The streets turn out to be plenty wide for street parking, don't they? So why else should Catellus force residents away from street parking?

I'd guess the policy stems in part from PR concerns. 78723 has very high auto theft rates (only 78741 is worse), and although Mueller will be a bit of an enclave, auto thieves might see cars there as fun bait. May be that the builders and developers want to avoid bad press which might affect sales in later phases, or tarnish the success of the development overall.
 
User Profile Image
Kevin Ludlow
Mueller Community

Posts: 582
Joined on August 19th, 2007
untitled topic
by Kevin Ludlow on September 12th, 2007

Quote:
May be that the builders and developers want to avoid bad press which might affect sales in later phases, or tarnish the success of the development overall.


I think that's the most plausible reason I've heard thus far.

However, my thinking is that regardless of WHOs car is actually on the street, the streets will still be packed most of the time. Especially if you consider just how many houses are on each block (hugely dense compared to a regular residential neighborhood) and the fact that there are parks everywhere that people will drive and consequently park to use.

I for one would like to see Catellus issue a statement as to why they felt this was an appropriate bylaw for the neighborhood.
 
No Image Available
preyn2
Mueller Community

Posts: 15
Joined on September 9th, 2007
untitled topic
by preyn2 on September 13th, 2007

Food for thought:

Catellus is in the business of developing real estate, which means somebody must build and sell houses. Houses require dirt on which to be built. The project is limited to something like 700 acres. Wider streets mean fewer houses because there is less dirt available for houses and more dirt under streets. Wider streets means less developed (read: sold for a profit) real estate.

City codes require minimum sizes for streets, to allow fire trucks, ambulances, etc. to safely navigate. On-street parking means the streets must be wider to allow navigable lane widths (again, the less-real-estate-to-sell issue). If, however, they discourage on-street parking, they can build the streets narrower, allowing them to sell more real estate.

In a previous post in this thread, I noted that I have a "professional preference" for wider streets. I drive a fire truck that is responsible for responding in the Mueller area.

This is only for discussion; I do not officially represent AFD or the City with any of this information.
 
User Profile Image
Kevin Ludlow
Mueller Community

Posts: 582
Joined on August 19th, 2007
untitled topic
by Kevin Ludlow on September 13th, 2007

I understand that point too and think it's completely valid and sensible that there be provisions for emergency and other professional (to use the word) vehicles.

The only issue that I have is that it seems the parking restrictions are aimed at residents, NOT just vehicles in general. It would be one thing if it said 'No Vehicle may be parked...' but it actually cites the vehicle being that of an owner or a guest.

Here is what we have been citing, just for simplicity:

Quote:
2.35 On Street Parking. No Owner or resident may park a vehicle on any road or street within the Property unless in the event of an emergency or as otherwise approved in writing by the Board.

Guests and/or visitors may not park a vehicle on any road or street within the Property for more than
seventy two (72) consecutive hours unless in the event of an emergency or as otherwise approved in writing by the Board. "Emergency" for purpose of this Section 2.35 means an event which jeopardizes life or property. "Parked" as used herein shall be defined as a vehicle left unattended for more than thirty (30) consecutive minutes.


So if you live on Littlefield (for example), unless you have an emergency or are approved to do so, you can not park on Littlefield. When your out of town friends come to visit, they can park on Littlefield for 72 hours.

So what about someone who just wants to park their car there but happens to live across 51st street? Is there car going to be towed? Best I can tell, all of the parking signs have already been erected in the neighborhood and there is no mention of cars being towed just for being there.

Similarly, I could park my car in front of some random house across 51st street and leave it there for quite a long period of time before it was removed - I think anyways.

I realize that it does say 'Guests and/or visitors...' whereby visitors might just be a random person with no ties to a Mueller resident, but they aren't signing these restrictions and would have no way of knowing that rule in the first place. And since this isn't a gated community and has public roads...

So without getting lost in this lengthy discussion now, I guess my real confusion is simply: why is it only that owners and residents can not park in the streets? ...and are there additional sections in the deeds that prohibit cars in general from parking on our streets? ...and if so, how is a random person supposed to know the mueller deed restrictions and who enforces these?

I know it's a lot to ask, but I would imagine that I'll commonly have a few people over to my house and am really not sure how this is going to work if I have to worry about people's cars being towed. Not to mention, I have NO intention of not using at least half of my garage for various things other than parking a second car.
 
Elect Kevin Ludlow for State Rep!
Pro-LGBT Rights, Pro-Pot, Pro-Net Neutrality, Anti-TSA, Anti-NSA. Support Kevin Ludlow for the TX House of Representatives District 46
Weird Window Cleaning
Contact us to receive a free estimate for your window cleaning and experience the same service provided to so many of your Mueller neighbors. Mention this ad for 10% off.
512-944-3700
15 yrs exp. Insured.
Zen Electronics - Custom Home Theater
A Mueller Resident Owned Business Providing Personalized, Cost Effective, Home Theater & Home Automation solutions in the Austin, TX Area. Click here to learn more.
view more ads »
First Prev 1 2
© 2005 - 2012 cityCore, LLC   |   terms   |   privacy