Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/11/2016MINUTES of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARKING ADVISORY BOARD January 11, 2016 5:30 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80524 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Susan Kirkpatrick Vice Chair: Holly Wright Staff Liaison: Kurt Ravenschlag 221-6386 Administrative Support: Melissa Brooks 224-6161 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Susan Kirkpatrick, Chair Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort GM & Parking Svcs. Manager, 221-6386 Steve Schroyer Melissa Brooks, Transfort, Administrative Aide, 224-6161 Holly Wright Stephanie Napoleon George Newman Nora Hill Bob Criswell ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Councilmember Kristin Stephens Michael Short Carey Hewitt 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 5:30 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 3. AGENDA REVIEW Agenda was approved as written. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Wright moved to accept the November 2015 Board minutes as written. Newman seconded. The November meeting minutes were approved unanimously. Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 2 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 6. PUBLIC COMMENT None 7. ACTION ITEMS A. No action items 8. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Nomination and Vote for Vice Chair Since Mike Pruznick did not reapply to remain on the board a Vice Chair is needed. Schroyer nominated Holly Wright and she accepted the nomination with a second from Napoleon. The vote was unanimous in favor of Wright becoming the new Vice Chair. B. RP3 University North Update, Kurt Ravenschlag Ravenschlag: Staff received direction following the implementation of the Parking Strategic Plan from City Council to implement the Residential Parking Permit Program. This was created in response to parking issues that were being observed around the CSU campus and The Summit, a new student housing development on College and Prospect and the spill over that was occurring into the adjacent neighborhoods. In 2014 we were asked to do a pilot program in this residential neighborhood to help manage the limited on street parking resource. The residents who desired to park on street were required to obtain a permit. The first permit was free. Any additional permits had escalating prices. We thought that this was a successful program and also received feedback from other neighborhoods for a desire to have the program implement as well. Sheely (south of CSU campus), Manze (east of Shields north of Laurel), Old Prospect (along Remington/Prospect area), all have since been implemented. University North is the most recent neighborhood that RP3 has been implemented. The results of the voting from University North property owners were 70% in favor of RP3. Implementation date will be in February. The signage that will be installed will indicate where the zone begins and other signage throughout the neighborhood with two hour parking. Cars can be parked for two hours in that zone then after the two hours a permit would be required. Kirkpatrick: Explain the changes to obtaining additional permits. Ravenschlag: It had been a standard distribution to residential and businesses and we felt that each neighborhood needed to be looked at individually. The on street inventory of parking and densities in each neighborhood is different. We lowered the number of initial permits that would be distributed to residents and businesses. In the University North area there are three different user types, business, single family and multifamily. Businesses and single family have the initial distribution of 3 permits. The first is free, the second and third have a price associated with it. For multifamily, they will be issued one permit due to the number of Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 3 of multifamily residences and the availability of on street parking in the University North neighborhood. After the initial distribution, we look at how many were distributed and will allow residents and businesses to request additional permits. After the second distribution anyone can purchase a permit. Kirkpatrick: It is so close to CSU and they have raised their parking fees causing facility and staff members to park in the University North neighborhood. They will be able to purchase permits if any are left over. Ravenschlag: $40 a month is what they have to pay. We tried to be cognizant of CSU rates so it is comparable to what they would have paid for a CSU permit. Wright: Was there a follow up letter of the results with how to do the permits? Ravenschlag: I believe that was sent, but will follow up on that. There will be an update for the next meeting about old Fort Collins High Wright: There was an article in the paper. I was reading about how much it costs, why there is a waiting list, why can’t implement more neighborhoods, shortage of staff and money. People who want it have to wait. Think about revenue stream of on street paid parking and how it could be a revenue source to pay for that program. It is needed because we are underfunded and under staffed. Ravenschlag: When you look at the geographic area Parking Services is responsible for, it has more than doubled than what it was two years and ago, and we have not increased our enforcement staff. I am optimistic that we can find efficacies in how we do our enforcement. We will have to add more staffing if the program continues to grow. The point made about the waitlist and process clearing up. That had to do recently with the transition of me coming on board and the changes we have made. The structural process improvements should help with processing the requests in a timelier manner. We are in a better position to start the implantation process for those requests. Newman: Are there any concerns that if a neighborhood signed on they would expect if someone is parked in their spot you would do something about it? Ravenschlag: We are doing a deep dive in Parking Services of how we do it. We have six enforcement officers that begin their day at 8 am and end their day at 5 pm, Monday – Friday. We are looking for different ways to utilize the six enforcement officers and still provide effective management downtown and areas where it is needed most. We want to make sure we are doing it the right times of the day, days of the week, and deploying those resources in the right areas. We are also looking at how we do enforcement. Right now a lot of their routes are on foot and limits the area that is covered so we are looking at technology to help. Wright: Should it be on our radar, when the work plan is in place, to make a recommendation to City Council for budget items like technology or vehicles? Ravenschlag: I think as we get into the next item those things may come up and this board might want to take on for this year. Knowing that this year is going to include a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) cycle will be a big item. Criswell: In the RP3 areas there is two hour parking. It is part of all of them or only the new one? Ravenschlag: We are requiring it for all new RP3s. It was a choice for the previous neighborhoods. Some elected to have two hour parking some did not. Criswell: Is there a way to prevent reselling the permits? Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 4 Ravenschlag: The permits are assigned to a particular address is based on their licenses plate. Guest permits are hangtags, and if we see a particular guest permit out there every day we can contact the property owner. Kirkpatrick: RP3 has potential to be parking management framework and to work with a variety of users. Our work plan included the desire to provide a report to City Council, but we were not in the position to make that report. We are beginning to see the possibility to talk to Council about this program they put into place. It is our area to tell Council how this program is progressing. Criswell: Is most of this because CSU does not provide adequate parking for off campus students? Ravenschlag: As the university continues to develop there is the potential for parking to be lost. There is a reduced number of parking on campus which is resulting in their pricing structures changing. They are trying to add additional capacity; they built one structure already and one currently under construction. It will not offset what they lost, but will help. Wright: They are trying to push parking to the outside of campus. The have the shuttle Around the Horn and built lots near the veterinary school. Criswell: What is the occupancy of both structures? Ravenschlag: Occupancy is around 60% Schroyer: Are you finding out that the residential areas you are trying to monitor need to be monitored like the red zones in Old Town? Ravenschlag: No Schroyer: They would need to be monitored almost on a surprise basis. I park in the Sheely neighborhood, don’t bother getting a permit, and just hope I don’t get caught. Nobody is parking there for hours at a time. It would be more detrimental if I didn’t know when it was being monitors. That would mean less resources that you would need. How do you draw the boundary? Ravenschlag: When they submit a petition we ask them to give us a general idea where they think the problem is. We will then do occupancy studies and identify the area. Right now our currently thinking is to draw the boundary where the existing problem is and let the additional streets join in later. Napoleon: You changed the initial application process, has that helped? Ravenschlag: It has, there wasn’t a formal process to initiate this just complaint driven. Now we are requiring a petition of ten residents. In closing University North was very challenging due to the diversity of uses, single family, businesses, multifamily, high occupancy residential and fraternity. Wright: Are you weighing in on the Downtown Plan in regards to structures that are needed? We talked about a parking garage at Mulberry and Canyon. Ravenschlag: I am on the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee and work closely with Seth on that plan. There will be a lot of good things to come out of it because of the outreach and public involvement. They are also working closely with the Parking Strategic Plan, which looked at areas downtown for future parking structures. C. 2016 Work Plan and Report Discussion Kirkpatrick: City Council appreciates to have communications from boards and commissions about what they plan to do that year. We submitted our first work plan last January. We are also responsible to submit an annual report. We didn’t have too much material to work with Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 5 for the 2016 work plan, I wrote in the report a summary of what we did last year and leaving room for work plan. We did not complete the work plan we set to do by not providing a recommendation to Council regarding on street paid parking in downtown Fort Collins. This was because of the Downtown Plan. In addition, we had the change in personnel with the Parking Service Manager. The second thing was to evaluate the Residential Parking Permit Program, we learned a lot but did not evaluate. Wright: The June minutes were talking about revisions to the 2015 Parking Advisory Board Work Plan and one was managing employee parking and use of lots, making sure information is available to Downtown businesses, extended enforcement hours during the week and weekends, and two hour parking on east Mountain. These were things mentioned before our break and Kurt was getting up to speed on some of this. This is something we should have in our work plan. We are gaining knowledge of RP3 and find a way to evaluate that. I think those things are obtainable because we have heard about and talked about it before. Ravenschlag: Understanding the type of information you all are looking for, like evaluating the RP3, we are now at a point that we can start providing valuable information. General feedback from the neighborhoods themselves would be valuable and hearing from Parking Services in terms of how we are able to take on additional responsibility in a sustainable way. We will try to provide you with valuable information for you to evaluate and if there are specific things please let us know. Kirkpatrick: Recommendation to current management strategies could be a line item. We have been watching as a Board with regular updates from the staff member who is leading the Downtown Plan. We will have an opportunity to weigh in on a recommendation in May 2016 and RP3 Program Budget needs. Would this be a reasonable work plan for the Board? Newman: Do we consider parking for MAX as part of our scope? Kirkpatrick: It is, the introduction to the report that was sent out, takes the foundational language in the ordinance that created the Parking Advisory Board word for word and that is the scope. Wright: How is the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) going? I know people can get permits and park along the MAX, is that anything that needs to be talked about? Ravenschlag: TOD means developments that are adjacent to high frequency transit corridors. The theory behind it is reducing the demand for automobiles. In Fort Collins we have been able to successfully implement in a scaled way. Wright: Before MAX was on line there was talk about parking along that corridor and putting a parking system into place not to drive downtown. We can now evaluate and weigh in on that because it affects downtown. Ravenschlag: My role in the City that is something I am pushing, having parking looked at as more than just downtown. We are seeing parking issues growing beyond downtown and in the future the issues will be everywhere. We are seeing how we can add capacity to areas that are limited through multimodal solutions like MAX. All the parking space south of Laurel is adding capacity to downtown and on the CSU campus. We are lobbing for a planning effort to develop a more comprehensive parking plan that not just downtown but a strategy that is comprehensive and multimodal. Kirkpatrick: This board is only two and half years old and formed following the adoption of the Parking Plan which is focused for downtown and need to address those issues. Parking along MAX should be discussed later in the year. Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 6 Ravenschlag: There will be opportunities to bring to you for feedback and discussion throughout the year that are not necessarily tied to your work plan. Newman: It is a complex system getting people downtown and doing it in a pleasing way. Ravenschlag: Parking along MAX is a problem, because we are over occupancy at every location along the corridor. We are working with a shared parking agreement model, working with property owners to utilize excess parking. We have learned that MAX is popular, and CSU has learned it is a great way to get to campus avoiding paid parking. The Drake lot has 76 assigned parking spaces, there is close to 400 people parking there when school is in session. This problem continues south to the South Transit Center. The church we have an agreement with spilling over into the neighborhood. The South Transit Center is a surface lot with 175 spaces, has overflowed and spilled out onto Fossil Pkwy. We would like to preserve the ability to build a parking structure there whether it is through the City or private/public partnership. I am lobbing for a more comprehensive parking plan. One of the action items from the parking plan was criteria to establish public private partnerships for parking. There is a lot of development interest along the Mason Corridor with developers approaching us asking if we would like to partner on parking. Right now how do you pick and choose and way your return on your investment. Wright: New West Fest, MAX ran on Sunday there were a lot of people going downtown and going back to where those parking spaces are. When the stadium comes on line with 45,000 people a good portion will be taking the MAX. That is a lot of cars to park somewhere. Kirkpatrick: I am hearing interest from the Board and Staff talking about parking along the MAX and criteria for public and private partnerships. Ravenschlag: My hope is that we can address it through a planning effort and most likely presenting for the Budget for Outcome process. What I can do, as we are crafting offers to be funded, we can provide you input of what we are looking at for a scope for that planning effort and gather feedback from the board in terms of things we haven’t thought of that might be of benefit to include in the comprehensive planning effort. Wright: Sometimes it doesn’t make it above the line, but at least it is in discussion. Ravenschlag: It identifies the need and the desire. There are always mid budget opportunities to fund items. Criswell: If we don’t have an item on our work plan is it off the table for a year? Kirkpatrick: No, the work plan to keep us on track and make it worth our time. Wright: We get speakers to fill us in and get educated on things to make recommendations. Kirkpatrick: The scope of our responsibility leads us to add an element broader than Budgeting for Outcomes. Ravenschlag: It would be better phrase as potential Budgeting for Outcome offers that Staff is looking to submit. Then the board could weigh in on what those offers are. Criswell: One thing I am concerned about is the parking garages that are 40% vacant at best. We should address the garages before we do anything drastic. Kirkpatrick: That would be the parking management tweaks. We are waiting to hear recommendations to our current system. Ravenschlag: Oversell rates are what percentage over the number spaces in the garage we are willing to sell permits. Our current oversell rate is 40%. Maybe we should increase the oversell rate since there are vacancies in the structures. Some businesses are allowed through alternative compliance they can purchase permits for the structures. Regular Meeting Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 7 Kirkpatrick: Thinking about next month and the rest of the year would it be possible to come up some bullets to what came up today and email them. It would be great to approve the work plan on February 8. Wright: the elements of the downtown plan parking being discussed by Seth. The parking part of the plan was to be fast tracked when will we find out? Ravenschlag: I will find out from Seth if that will come before May. Wright: The Downtown Plan Project follow up by Seth, one thing was better communication about parking locations and availability. We talked about censors if that is part of the discussion that would be a budget item. 9. REPORTS E. BOARD REPORTS - Kirkpatrick The Christmas free parking was great. Ravenschlag: Historically we left the gates down to collect data, but decided that the data collection wasn’t as important as the customer service aspect. F. STAFF LIAISON REPORT None 10. OTHER BUSINESS None February Agenda: Downtown Parking Plan Update RP3 Update-Old Fort Collins High School Approval of the 2016 PAB Work Plan 11. ADJOURN The meeting was concluded at 7:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Melissa Brooks Melissa Brooks Administrative Aide Transfort