Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/12/2015MINUTES of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARKING ADVISORY BOARD October 12, 2015 5:30 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80524 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Susan Kirkpatrick Vice Chair: Michael Pruznick 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 Michael Pruznick, Vice Chair Melissa Brooks, Transfort, Administrative Aide, 224-6161 Holly Wright Seth Lorson, City Planner Carey Hewitt Timothy Wilder, Transfort, Service Development Manager Stephanie Napoleon Jamie Moyer, Parking Services, Publicity Marketing Tech Tracy Mead Michael Short ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Councilmember Kristin Stephens Steve Schroyer Stuart MacMillan 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. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 October 12, 2015 6. PUBLIC COMMENT None 7. ACTION ITEMS A. Downtown Hotel Parking Garage Recommendation to City Council. Ravenschlag: Last month we had a presentation from Mike Beckstead the Chief Financial Officer about a partnership the City has been working with the Bohemian Foundation for a inclusion of a parking structure with their hotel plans. He went over the general basics of what is entailed with in the structure, how big it is and how many parking spaces. He also broke down the financial structure between the partnership between Bohemian and the City. Since then, there has been an additional partner with the DBA and will reduce the City’s commitment by 3 million. Kirkpatrick: It was really an excellent presentation. Mike requested the information. Purznick: I requested the information. There was an article in the paper and wanted more information on it. Kirkpatrick: Mike Beckstead was willing to answer questions and talk about the project. Since our meeting the project went to the Planning and Zoning Board and was approved by them. Lorson: The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously. Going to City Finance Committee this month and then going to Council for approval of funds. Kirkpatrick: After Mike Beckstead’s presentation we thought it might be a good idea for the Parking Advisory Board to weigh in to City Council in a formal way. Our role is how this will fit in with the City’s Parking Plan. It seemed to fit well enough that we have a letter, if approved, will go to Council that says the Parking Advisory Board supports this project. The primary element that this letter weighs in on is the public and private partnership. As I understand we have done partnership as a community with other parking structures. We have never been with a private sector and there could be some concerns about public private partnership. Mead: I am curious about the pricing structure and how that feeds into the overall parking plan. Ravenschlag: Mike did not discuss the pricing structure for the use of the structure. Mead: What we have been talking about over the last year is the need to be strategic about how we price the combination of parking on street and structures. Ravenschlag: The expectation is that we would be managing that facility and they would look to us to set the pricing structure. Right now the structure from a use standpoint is about one third, two thirds. The first deck would be hotel use and then next two decks would be for City use. That will most likely be permit and timed parking. The timed parking would be a discussion of what would be the right price for that. We are looking at having the facility be a non-access control. There would not be a gate system, so it would be free flow with pay stations inside the structure. After you park you would put in your time how long you will be there. This is a management strategy that we are eager to try out. We think it will be efficient and effective. Kirkpatrick: This is 2017 so we have lots of time to weigh in. At this point does anyone move to approve to send the letter to City Council? Hewitt: I will move that we send the letter. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 October 12, 2015 Short: Second. Kirkpatrick: It is approved 6 to 1. Purznick: Apposes due to timing issues and over capacity with long term parking on the streets and would like to see something implanted to move that into the structures. Thinking about putting a parking structure on Mason above the transit center enables us to put bridges over the railroad tracks and it also eliminates the need for parking on Mason and Maple. There are a lot of other plans that the City has and since we own the land it would cost less. I know it is not on the table right now, but that is why I am hesitant. Maybe in a year or two I might be more in support of it. 8. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Downtown Plan Project Follow Up, Seth Lorson, City Planner Lorson: We are taking on the Downtown Parking Community dialog that was left from Randy Hensley when he retired about parking management and parking occupancy in the downtown. We are doing the Downtown Plan and talking about all topics in a comprehensive way. From Downtown management to transportation to urban design art culture. Throughout that we have been talking to people about parking and it has been one of those topics that have come up as a principle issue. We have come up with key issues: • Perceived lack of adequate parking turnover and accessibility. • Concern about potential neighborhood impacts due to the increased pace of development. • Need for better communications about parking locations and availability. • Desire to move away from a punitive enforcement driven funding model. From that we garnered objectives for the dialog that are: • Increase availability and ease access to turnover of on-street parking. • Develop a parking management system that is supportive of businesses, neighborhoods, and visitors. • Provide and communicate a variety of options for parking and for traveling to and around Downtown. • Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to reduce parking demand. • Identify a sustainable funding source for future access and transportation infrastructure investment. The Spectrum of Parking Alternatives was created because this is a difficult issue. The gradient is: • Free Parking • Time-Limited Parking (Then Leave) o Provides two-hour, free on-street parking with enforcement • 2 Hours Free (Then Pay) o Provides a moderate amount of free on-street parking • 1 Hour Free (Then Pay) • 30 Minutes Free (Then Pay) • 20 Minutes Free (Then Pay) o Preserves a limited amount of free on-street parking Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 October 12, 2015 o Promotes turnover • Paid Parking o Does not provide any free on-street parking o Promotes turnover Gradient for Parking Garages • Free Parking o Provides all day, free off-street parking o Offers a viable alternative to on-street parking o Attractive to both short and long term parkers • First Hour Free o Proved a moderate amount of free off street parking o Attractive to both short and long-term parkers • Paid Parking o Does not provide any free off-street parking o Less attractive for short term parkers Other strategies to be considered with on-street and garage parking: • Expand Enforcement • Manage Employee Parking • Residential Parking Permit Program • Enhanced Communication, Education and Wayfinding • Alternative Funding Options • Transportation Circulation Options • Increase Supply • Park & Ride We are using this as our tool to have the conversation. The length of stay graphic shows where people should be appropriate parking with short-term parking on-street and long-term in garages. This is one of our principle goals. To go along with this we put together case studies of similar communities of what they are doing and issues they have dealt with. Focus groups will be conducted in 2 hour sessions with downtown business members about what they think about the objectives that have been identified and how these would achieve the objectives. Mead: How are you getting people there? Lorson: We have been targeting our audience with downtown business owners and the central stake holders. The principle modes that we have used to try to get people are emails and hand bills. We have had an unimpressive response. Mead: I think it is a valuable conversation and wish you could pare it with something else. I don’t think most want to spend two hours talking about it unless their business has a stake. The challenge that we have talked about has been the fact that the right people don’t engage in the conversation until decisions are going to be made then they say that they were never asked. How can you do different outreach for more engagement? Is there a different strategy to solicit stake holder feedback? I think about different stakeholder groups and if you could connect with different organizations, and do surveys for you, a tool that you could give us that we could self-administer to facilitate your work? Hewitt: I wonder why we haven’t had so many people and maybe it is not perceived as a problem. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 October 12, 2015 Mead: I think that it is the whole PR process that we know what we need to do around this issue and get people brought into the options and opportunities and pre-sell it before we pursue a solution. Hewitt: I find it strange that we are not getting a better response because; we know it is a volatile issue. If there was a meeting about on street paid parking, there is a guarantee that would not be a lack luster response. How do we get there and is that what we really want to know? We are looking for the opportunity to educate people about this spectrum that you put with those graphs. That is the beginning of this conversation about why should we be talking about meters? Lorson: In my email I did put changes may be coming. I felt that was a little risky. If you look at the new strategic plan that the DBA is working on, parking is one the top issues that keeps coming up doing the Downtown Plan. In this round, we really did target downtown businesses. We feel that they are the primary stake holders and really want to hear from them. We might have to do another round with a more boarder audience and maybe employ other things like going to organizations to do surveys for us. Wright: Remember the counter cards we had when we were doing the visioning and the surveys people could take. Did you get a very good response from that? You were saying to engage people at our retail businesses. I am curious if this is something that should be done again if it was successful the first time, but have it specifically for parking. Lorson: Yes I think definitely. Someone said that two hours is too long to talk about parking and I think it is just enough time. It is really challenging subject to take in there is a lot of emotion. This idea was really to have a focus group and a survey is really not a focus group and a survey is not a two way conversation. So we can do that but we definitely want the foundation of information from groups. We have done a couple of surveys and have kept the language very general, like what is most important when trying to park downtown. It is not talking about alternatives like would you support off street parking if it made more availability of on street parking. We are not quite there yet, unfortunately. Kirkpatrick: There were two objectives one was let people know that were lots of spaces still left and I think Mike mentioned everyone on the parking bored might want to attend one of these sessions. Purznick: I was thinking you might want to divvy up the sessions and try to distribute representation from the board at each session. There is so much information conveyed and there is a range of opinion that we could help to balance. Kirkpatrick: Most of us are coming to one. Hewitt: How many sessions are there? Lorson: I trimmed two off today by asking the sessions with one and two people to join another group for the benefit of the conversation. Kirkpatrick: We still have time to distribute ourselves if possible. Short: Is the DBA involved? We have had very animated conversations about this. Wright: It has gone out in a newsletter. It was announced at the member meeting both Susan and I were at that meeting and encouraged people to keep an eye on and to weight in. Kirkpatrick: At the member meeting last month both Holly and I independently felt much more productive/positive discuss about parking options than a year ago. The tone was noticeable different. Maybe that is why. It felt that heat has gone away. Mead: Maybe there were just different people in the room? Kirkpatrick: No. Wright: I think there were strong opinions still against it. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 October 12, 2015 Lorson: The people against it, was there an agreement that something has to happen or was it everything is fine and let’s carry on? Wright: It was the latter. They think it will kill their business and worried about the mall going in. They think that it is a big competitor that will keep people from coming downtown. The spectrum is at our discretion to determine what the best way to go is. I have always said if you have the two hours free is the same as it is now but can stay longer. I think people don’t always look at all the options and at the information in front of them. Maybe distribute the chart at a DBA meeting? Kirkpatrick: If people could take a look at the comparison document with other communities with meters. I was really pleased with the additional data that was included in this. None of these other communities that have meters have had them recently. They are all 1940s so the comparison in my opinion is not terrific. The data also included retail vacancy and overall economic Downtown health. There is a lot of information in there. Purznick: If we want to move away from the punitive model, let’s say I want to compete with Holly. I could pay my employee to park in front of her business. From a point of view and we don’t have a punitive model and I have the ability, I could pay people to park in front of my competitor’s business. If there is no punitive measure where employees could afford pay longer do we get the impact from the green dial graphic? Wright: I think this plan is about management of employees and having permits available for them. I don’t think on street is the single most thing we should be talking about. Lorson: It is not the only thing. Traditionally is recognized as the silver bullet the one that affects everything in the boarder sense. We have a very successful downtown and haven’t had on street paid parking for decades. Obviously our community has to have a lot of conversation about this and that might not be the direction we want to go. Ravenschlag: Seth could you share the timeline of the Downtown Plan? Lorson: Right now we just started phase 3 of the Downtown Plan. The parking dialog is moving faster. Phase 3 is called Choices and Strategies. On the time line we presented to this Board in the past, May 2016 is when expect to be done and bring something to City Council with a recommendation from the boards and the result of all of our outreach, whatever that might be. B. Residential Parking Permit Program Update, Timothy Wilder, Service Development Manager Wilder: Talking about proposed changes to the RP3 program. Jamie is in the back of the room to help answer questions. I am mostly going to focus in on the recent changes that we are proposing. Currently we have four zones that are in place today we have learned a lot from implementation. We are working on four additional areas. The one in process now is University North. The next ones are the old Fort Collins High School, Sherwood, west of Downtown and then Library Park. In discussing changes we looked back to what we felt should be the philosophy of the program. This is insuring the program has strong support of the neighborhoods before implementation. We looked closely at the policies and felt that there were some gaps interims of some areas that really need to be strengthened was primarily around whether or not there was strong support for the program. This became especially important for University North that is more eclectic than the existing districts where you have businesses, students living in the neighborhood, occupied housing, landlords, just a very diverse composition. We felt that here is the time to look at how we initiate and implement that program. Another part is that there were many grey areas we wanted to Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 October 12, 2015 absolve as many as the grey areas as possible. When we do get requests we can be clearer as to how the process looks like and the outcomes. Proposed Changes to the Program: Initiation: Current-Anyone could request for us to take a look at. We thought that there needs to be a higher threshold in terms of requests. Now we are looking for 10 valid signatures from residents in the neighborhood. We felt that 10 was a reasonable number not to high not too low. Program Rules: The way it stands now with 2 hour parking is that a neighborhood can request it, but now it will be included in each of the districts. However were able to discuss whether it applies to block faces. In some cases it may be open parking or loading zones that would affect. The base level will be 2 hour parking in the neighborhood to provide additional options for parking and to recognize that parking is a community resources and everyone should have the ability to park within reasonable parameters. A driver or commuter can park for 2 hours once per day in that neighborhood they cannot continue to move around their vehicle. They have to leave the district. For commuter permits there is not a defined procedure for the allocation. The change here is that this gets into the allocation of the resource. If there is capacity we would allow commuter permits to be purchased. However residents and business would have the priority. There is a cost associated but is dependent on what our studies say about the occupancy of parking in the area. Once the permits are allocated we will know how many commuter permits are available. The cost of commuter permits right now has no cost. We are proposing $40 per month. You can buy up to three months. With that the pricing we didn’t want to get in excess or too low of CSU. Mead: You can only buy three months at a time, so then you are back in the cue and you may or may not get another one. Wilder: Then you can reapply if there is capacity. We want to make sure it adjusts. Residents may be purchasing additional permits. You may only need the permit for three months. Guest permits are upon request right now. We wanted to stream line this. Single family residents can get up to two hang tags. Then if you have parties you can borrow from others or you can request from Parking. They do go with the property and will be assigned so we can monitor the use. Ravenschlag: The current process for guest permits is that you call into Parking and provide them with the license plate number of who your guests are. Very cumbersome. Wilder: All the districts currently have the license plate reader technology so you have to report all guest. Mead: If parking is an issue in a neighborhood it should provide some relief. Wilder: We want residents to want the program. We don’t want to impose it upon them. It has to be initiated by the residents and show support for it. Currently voters are residents and we are proposing that they be property owners. It gets complicated with residents moving in and out. We had issues this summer with University North. We feel that having a uniform standard of having all owners get one vote despite how many properties they have. How that takes place is upon the residents if they want the program to work with their landlords rather than having the City come in and say that this is good for you. Right now there is no minimum participation. We would require 50% of the owners would have to participate and finally approval is the same with 50% plus 1. Process Flowchart: Petition containing 10 signatures and based on that petition we would request information about the area they are requesting and time frame they would like to see enforced. Based on that information we would define the boundaries and due an occupancy Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 October 12, 2015 study and then based on suggested time frame would study when requested. Then go back to see if there effects on the surrounding area and readjust if needed. Then we would want to see 70 % occupancy and if it is less, we don’t form the district. We don’t feel that there is a big enough issue during the requested timeframe. Greater than 70% we would continue forwarding the program. Staff would define how they think the program should be set up. Then present that to the neighborhood during a neighborhood meeting. Have discussion and the owners would vote and based on the vote either the district will be formed and if not they will have to wait a year to do another request. Pruznick: I don’t understand the 50 plus participation versus the plus 1. Wilder: You have a hundred owners and have to have at least 50 voting. Out of the 50 you have to get 26 in favor of the program. Napoleon: Is there a fee involved to set up the district. Wilder: There is no fee involved the permits once get to certain level there is a cost. Moyer: First one free second $15, third is $40, fourth $100. Napoleon: What does this study take timewise and how many people? Ravenschlag: That is why we wanted to increase the thresholds before we even do anything. Previously, you would get people complaining about a parking problem and that would initiate the process. We wanted to create a little higher threshold than that. That is why we want a petition of at least 10 signatures before we say that we will do an occupancy study. We also request in the petition information about what the problem is and when it is occurring. So we can focus our study to those areas. This will streamline the process and limit the amount of resources we are investing in. Kirkpatrick: From a cost benefit standpoint would on street paid parking be comparable instead of doing permits? Ravenschlag: The condition may not always be there (the problem). This is a good initial tstep to try to affect change with parking. For example Spring Court and Old Prospect are effects of the new housing development that went in. If a parking structure becomes part of the project that parking issue may no longer exist in those neighborhoods. There are going to be things that effect whether there are parking issues in the neighborhood or not. The changes we are proposing will be an easy package to roll out to neighborhoods and easy to manage. If there is a particular area like Downtown that might not change on street paid parking part of the conversation and it may eventually in these neighborhoods. University North is an interesting one and was why we felt strongly about the owners having the vote. Just like businesses downtown with paid or permit parking, it would have an impact on their investment. We didn’t feel it was right having the renter make the decision on behalf of the owner. Pruznick: I would be comfortable with a higher threshold. Every neighborhood is different and I am wondering if there should be a range based on conditions? Hewitt: How does the adding of districts affect your enforcement and limited resources? Wilder: That is one of the serious questions we wanted to get into. It was in the back of our minds that maybe it is easy to create a district today, and making sure we are on firm ground when we get a new one and look at those issues to make sure we do have enforcement. Right now we are in a good position. Ravenschlag: Right now what we are looking at our current enforcement practices because if we were to continue with the current practices we would struggle to increase the areas that we want to enforce. We are looking how to be more efficient with what we are doing today so we have the ability and bandwidth to do these other neighborhoods. I think with our Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 October 12, 2015 current staffing there is an opportunity to do more. Right now we have the majority of our enforcement officers on foot walking the downtown area. We feel that there an opportunity to put them in vehicles and do that more efficient to where they have the ability to go into abroad coverage area. If this program starts exploding and they are not just neighborhoods adjacent to the university but, elementary schools, high schools, churches then we need to pause and relook at the program. These districts are not generating revenue to support the program. This is the direction that Council has asked Parking Services to move forward and to implement this residential parking program. There might come a time where our existing resources can no longer support it. Wright: Are the zones being covered at specific times of the day? Wilder: We do have specific times during the day 8 am – 5 pm. Short: Have you looked at the options of overnight application versus 24/7 permit? Wilder: If it is signed to be a day time permit required like 8 to 5 then any time after that it is open parking. So it depends. Short: Will that application be customized? Wilder: Right, depending on the timeframe of when the issue is. Short: In the University area you have so many people parking on the side streets then they go away. You don’t see that during the weekends or nights but during the day doesn’t the demand for that parking go down a little bit with the residents going to work? Wilder: Bottom line is that this is not a one size fits all program so those hours would get established based upon what is the perceived time issues and what the occupancy study finds. We would base the program upon the timeframe when the problem is occurring. University North is during the day and again if there was area with an evening issue we would look at enforcement or signage to recognized that it is during that period versus 24 hours. Moyer: We do have four different zones with different times in affect. We don’t have enforcement 24 hours a day but, signage helps to deter parking. Napoleon: How do you enforce it? Ravenschlag: We are proposing that we have a set time. Wilder: University North, there are a few changes we are proposing. There was a vote during the summer with a very low turnout. This is one we thought we needed to revisit the proposal for this area and get it right. There will be a public meeting then an owner vote after the meeting. In this area with a higher occupancy, we lower the number of permits per type of place. Single family would get 3 multifamily gets 1per unit and businesses get 3. The number of permits is based on anticipated capacity and allocation. Commuter permits may be allowed if capacity exists. Enforcement would be Monday – Friday 8 am to 5 pm. We have met with CSU and they prefer to have two hour parking around their facilities. Hewitt: A question about funding, this program is not self-sufficient does that take resources from the downtown area? Moyer: We have a dedicated source from Council Ravenschlag: The enforcement officers’ time is not included. Napoleon: How much revenue are you seeing on the four we have right now? Ravenschlag: I can’t remember the exact number, but when I saw it, it was small. Wright: If you allocate all the resident permits that are allowed can people apply for a permit above and beyond that. If students and wanted to park on certain block they can get a permit to park on that block instead of buying a CSU parking permit? Wilder: If we deem it that the capacity is there for it. Then yes they can apply for a commuter permit. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 October 12, 2015 Wright: Is that pretty successful in other areas? Wilder: Yes, it is a common practice. Boulder uses it. Moyer: A lot of universities use it. Boulder is around $40 as well. Ravenschlag: We are allowing residents and business owners to apply for the commuter permits first before we open it up to the general public. A business wanted 20 permits we would let them have the opportunity to buy those permits if they were available. Wright: We have a rental home in that area and it is always jam packed but, our tenant parks on the driveway. It seems that we are pushing people further and further out as far as the students. Where are they going to go? Then the next neighborhood will have the same problem. It would be nice for people to be able to buy permits. Wilder: We don’t want to push the problem elsewhere and that is the key for our stake holders. Ravenschlag: You will still see a lot of on street parking, the goal is not to eliminate it, but manage it to where if you were to drive to this neighborhood you could find a place to park. With University North, the program may not get implanted even though there is a clear issue there, but with the thresholds we have created that maybe challenging. Moyer: A letter did go out to both residents and owners. Hewitt: This program started when the Summit came about and all the sudden you have cars with no place to go. I drive through the Remington/Stewart section and there are not many cars parked. Where are they going? Wilder: We did have a request to expand the Old Prospect area. Ravenschlag: The Summit has established agreements with a number of churches throughout the community and the residents are storing their vehicles in the parking lots and then running a shuttle bus between those and the Summit. Hewitt: Is the Summit building a parking garage? Ravenschlag: They would like to, not sure of the status. Not sure if it is still in process. Kirkpatrick: Hope this proposal works and eligible owners participate. If any part of the community reminds me of Downtown it is University North and if we can figure out how to manage parking there, I think we will learn a lot. Ravenschlag: What are your thoughts on the proposal for those thresholds for participation as well as owners voting versus residents? Hewitt: My initial reaction is all good. It helps you and makes it fare. Kirkpatrick: 50 percent of threshold is quite common for participation. The majority of participants make sense. Another way to look at it is to have a lower threshold for understanding and higher approval. 30 percent of owners have to participate, but 60 percent would have to say yes. That would be an alternative and you might have better success with. Napoleon: I like the initial needing to put on the neighborhood for them to do their due diligence. Ravenschlag: We struggled on the participation side because we feel it is an imposing program on a neighborhood and you want their buy in on a program like that. Wright: Engagement is needed to have people weigh in and know about it. It will require several steps. Ravenschlag: We will share at the meeting that this is important and is needed in your neighborhood.Talk to your neighbors and get them to participate. A lot of the owners do not live in the area. Napoleon: Will there be a proxy vote? Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 October 12, 2015 Ravenschlag: If they don’t attend the meetings and the tenants attend we are going to encourage them to have the conversation with the owners and get them engaged in the process. Right now we are proposing mail in voting. Kirkpatrick: Kurt will you let us know what happens at the next meeting? 9. REPORTS E. BOARD REPORTS - Kirkpatrick Boards and Commissions Dinner is October 28 at the Lincoln Center. F. STAFF LIAISON REPORT None 10. OTHER BUSINESS Ravenschlag: I have a question for the Board. It relates to the question for Seth when the plan will be completed and ties to the conversation that this Board has been having in regards to on street paid parking. The City Manager has asked for a status update of when this board will be making a recommendation of on street paid parking. I believe you are waiting until the completion of the Downtown Plan, is that correct. Kirkpatrick: Yes, that is correct. November Agenda: 11. ADJOURN The meeting was concluded at 6:56 pm Respectfully submitted, Melissa Brooks Melissa Brooks Administrative Aide Transfort