Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/11/2017MINUTES of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARKING ADVISORY BOARD September 11, 2017 5:30 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80524 FOR REFERENCE: Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Chair: Holly Wright Vice Chair: Bob Criswell Staff Liaison: Kurt Ravenschlag 221-6386 Administrative Support: Melissa Brooks 224-6161 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Holly Wright, Chair Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort/Parking General Manager Bob Criswell, Vice Chair Timothy Wilder, Transfort/Parking Service Devel. Manager Carey Hewitt Melissa Brooks, Transfort/Parking Admin. Aide Nora Hill Barbara Wilkins Kayla Utter Susan Kirkpatrick Nicholas Bohn ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Sara Kammlade 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hewitt motions to accept the August 2017 meeting minutes, Hill seconds. Minutes were approved unanimously. Discussion: **Draft** Meeting Minutes September 11, 2017 Page | 2 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT 6. PUBLIC COMMENT No public to comment. 7. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. City, Transit and Master Plans, Timothy Wilder During a Council Work Session direction was giving on how to proceed with the planning processes by reducing the budget and scope. Now, Staff can go ahead with the contract with consultants. The revised budget is $980,000 reduce from 1.5 million. The last time these plans were updated was in 2011. In 1997 was when the original City Plan was done and will be the fourth update. Council felt they wanted to be more in line of an update. The schedule for the City Plan is on a five year update process track. Council did not say to reduce or eliminate items; they gave general direction of what they thought the budget should be for the effort. Staff is on the right track and the vision will remain the same, and should be an update and not a complete redo. Staff put together what to reduce or eliminate to have the desire outcome of the three plans. Public involvement has shifted, the previous plan update there was extensive public involvement. There will still be a heavy emphasis on public involvement, but there are areas that are being adjusted and reduced. Staff will rely on partners to reach out to the hard to reach segments of the population. There is opportunity to use the boards and commissions for input. One of the first elements that came out of the public involvement plan and describe the various strategies to deploy and one will be boards and commissions outreach. Will look into creating a super board, to provide effective input and will be attending the PAB on a regular basis. What information, involvement, what would PAB would like the plan to try to accomplish in regards to parking? Wright: One thing is parking along MAX. Ride services like Uber and Lyft to have facilities to pick up and drop off at. Kirkpatrick: Super board is not a good idea. Bring questions to the boards. Ravenschlag: If there is a month that the project team has updates or needs feedback, it could be coordinated that the three transportation related boards meet. Wilder: There will be multiple opportunities to provide feedback. Utter: We want to be here to participate not to receive updates. We want to be a part of the process, not what already has happened. Criswell: How can we help make the decision? Ravenschlag: In Parking, the majority of the work plan came out of the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan has specific recommendations that the board submitted to Council. That is what Staff is working on right now and the board had a big impact on that. The City Plan tends to be general; it talks about policies and recommendations, not as specific as the Downtown Plan. These issues are identified at a high level, like parking along Mason Street. Staff knows it’s an issue but in terms what is done about it, it will have to come out of more specific planning. To set the expectation, this planning process is a high level. This Plan will set principles and policies, identify action items of further work that needs to be done. The areas of concern need to be identified, so they can start to be addressed. For future regional services is an area to look into. Will have to look at expansion in the future, more of an issue at the CSU Transit Center and services are increase while the facility is at it’s limit. **Draft** Meeting Minutes September 11, 2017 Page | 3 Parking received grant funding to do a parking study along the MAX corridor, to create additional parking with site specific analysts. The scope is getting underway and hope next year to have something in place. Conversations will focus on how to get less people to park at MAX stations and having additional service to them. Long term vision is for easy connections. B. Stadium Event Parking Update, Kurt Ravenschlag Parking stand point, the first game went well. The neighborhoods participating in RP3 didn’t have a lot of cars parked. There were 60 vehicles that were towed the first game. A vehicle that was towed was cited $100 and it was $200 to get the vehicle out. Towing didn’t cost the City any more than was originally planned. It was at expense of vehicle owner. The City has a contract with 5 tow truck companies. Not sure how many vehicles that were towed were from out of town. Neighborhoods not participating, University North was the busiest; University East was fine, Old Prospect was fine too. Avery Park was heavily parked. Game two cited 28 and towed 17, difference between the two games; we did change towing to wait longer so people could move vehicles before they were towed. We had system in place to get vehicle information; they could find the vehicle and which impound lot it was at. There weren’t any complaints. Research Lot was three quarters full. In general there was available parking. Parking around the old high school, was open. The mode split, 40% drove for the first game, much lower than what was anticipated, 25% walked, 20% rode the bus. Timothy stated the level of parking along max was the same for the second game as it was for the first. The number of people per vehicle was higher, 3.6 instead of 2.5. The garages were at 35% occupancy. Would any RP3 programs go away? Currently, the process to eliminate is the same as to implementing. Gilgiald may choose not to continue next year. There was a lot of positive feedback from RP3 neighborhoods. The transit loads were cleared in 41 minutes, but not sure about traffic. C. August 22 Council Work Session, RP3, Kurt Ravenschlag City Council asked for an update on what CSU’s parking and transportation strategy is. Staff wanted to clarify the purpose of the RP3 and bring forth a recommendation on how to strategically manage program boundaries. Council was asked if the RP3 program was intended to eliminate all nonresident parking in zones or allow for a balanced occupancy. The average occupancy was 85 % after implantation of RP3 it dropped to 36%. Should staff target a middle ground? Council stated we are meeting as and continue on the current track we are on and not to increase occupancy rate. The City will not promote commuter permits, but staff manages and issues permits and can control the occupancy. Growth of RP3, when a zone is implement we end up pushing parking into another neighborhood. Parking demand generators are CSU, commercial and multifamily and activity centers. An analysis was done what time it would take for someone to walk 30 minutes or 10 minute bike ride and established a recommended an RP3 management area. Council thought it was a good idea, **Draft** Meeting Minutes September 11, 2017 Page | 4 currently it could be established anywhere in the community. This defines a permitted area. Fast tracking neighborhoods into a zone. Process to fast track in to that zone and can participate in a vote at the same time. Why did council decided not to promote the permit? The intent of program was to keep parking open to residents parking and didn’t want to expand the opportunity to nonresidents. We didn’t get guidance to cap or limit commuter permits, just don’t do anything different. We’ll monitor and manage. 8. REPORTS A. BOARD REPORT B. STAFF LIAISON REPORT Firehouse Alley Parking Structure has experiences a few construction delays. The opening date will be November 8. 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURN Bob motioned to adjourn and Barb seconds. The meeting was concluded at 7:04 pm. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Brooks Administrative Aide Transfort/Parking Services