HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/28/2012 - UPDATE ON THE PARKING PLAN PROCESS (STAFF: WILDER,DATE: February 28, 2012
STAFF: Timothy Wilder
Randy Hensley
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Update on the Parking Plan Process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Advance Planning Department is preparing a Parking Plan in close collaboration with
the Parking Services Department. City Council approved $80,000 in one-time funding from the
Keep Fort Collins Great funding allocation for this project.
The Parking Plan team and consultant presented a list of preliminary “key” ideas for Council
consideration on November 29, 2011. The feedback was for staff to continue to discuss the key
ideas. Staff has revised the key ideas and processed them further with significant additional
stakeholder input. The main purpose of the February 28 Work Session is to update Council on the
status of the Parking Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Staff has circulated nine parking principles to stimulate public discussion. Some of these
principles, particularly the governance issue, have generated a lot of conversation and
controversy. Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to process additional
alternatives?
2. Does Council wish to provide any direction on the nine parking principles contained in
Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Parking Plan will be focused on addressing several critical problems and issues that were raised
by stakeholders during the process (see Attachment 1). Some key issues are as follows:
1. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots.
2. Employees parking on the street.
3. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage” avoidance.
4. More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have been
identified to pay for it.
5. Not prepared for a surge in employment.
February 28, 2012 Page 2
6. People don’t know their parking options.
7. Need to prepare for the Mason Corridor - MAX project.
8. Lack of business involvement and accountability in parking management decisions.
9. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods.
Since the November 29, 2011 Council Work Session, staff circulated the Fort Collins Parking Plan
Overview (Attachment 1) to help facilitate community feedback on nine parking principles. The
nine principles include:
1. Comprehensive Approach
2. Development-related Parking Management
3. Coordinated On-Street and Off-Street Parking Management
4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines
5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking
6. Integrated Access Management Approach
7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience
8. Partnering with Downtown Business and Downtown Management
9. Funding
Comments were provided by:
• Downtown Development Authority
• Downtown Business Association
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Bicycle Advisory Committee
• University Connections Transit and Mobility Committee
• Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee
• Transportation Board
• A subcommittee of DBA and DDA board members and business people
The Air Quality Advisory Board is scheduled to review the Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview on
February 27. Comments were also received from the general public at an open house on February
16. Those comments are contained in Attachment 4.
Comments have been consistently positive on several of the principle including:
1. Comprehensive Approach
4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines
6. Integrated Access Management Approach
7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience
Feedback has been more mixed on the other principles. In particular, there has been contention
around the business involvement and the governance issue (item 8A in Attachment 1), on-street
parking management (item 3A in Attachment 1), and development of new parking infrastructure
(item 2G – 2J in Attachment 1). Based on the feedback, staff feels there is more work that needs
to be done on options and additional outreach with the public and Downtown stakeholders. Staff
February 28, 2012 Page 3
needs more time to develop additional alternatives so that Council has a better set of options and
recommendations to consider.
Next Steps
In order to provide a better set of alternatives for Council discussion, the original schedule has been
extended to allow additional time for discussion and outreach. Staff proposes the following next
steps in the Parking Plan process:
• March-June Public Outreach
• May 1 Draft Parking Plan Available for Public Review
• May 10 Downtown Development Authority - review and recommendation
• May 16 Transportation Board - review and recommendation
• May 17 Planning and Zoning Board - review and recommendation
• June 26 City Council Work Session
• Summer 2012 City Council Regular Meeting – consideration of adoption of Parking Plan
ATTACHMENTS
1. Parking Plan Overview – Proposed Policy and Strategic Direction
2. Work Session Summary, November 29, 2011
3. Downtown Development Authority, City Board and Commission Meeting Minutes
4. Public Comments from February Parking Plan Outreach Meetings
5. Power Point presentation
Key Parking Issues
(Input From Stakeholders)
1. THE OVERALL PARKING SITUATION
 Good, but room for improvement
 Good, but not ready for the future
 Future parking needs unclear
2. NEW DEVELOPMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
 Need a parking-related economic development
strategy
 Not prepared for surge in employment
 No commercial or residential parking
requirements
 Downtown employees and CSU students impact
neighborhoods
3. ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODES
 Need to prepare for Mason Corridor project
 Change in community’s culture has more people
seeking alternative transportation
 Need to provide varying types and locations of
bicycle parking
4. CUSTOMER SERVICE
(MARKETING, EDUCATION, IDENTITY)
 People do not know their parking options
 Wayfinding improvements
are needed
5. ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET
PARKING MANAGEMENT
 Employees parking on-street
 Very high occupancies of core on-street parking
and public surface lots
 Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage
avoidance”
 Danger of Downtown being perceived as an
“enforcement zone”
 Two-hour time limit not meeting customer
needs
6. BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT
 Lack of business involvement and accountability
in parking management decisions
 Need for more collaboration between the City
and Downtown businesses
7. FUNDING
 Public/private partnerships key to future
improvements
 More parking infrastructure will be needed in
the future, but no revenue streams have been
identified to pay for it
 Parking is the “giant unfunded liability”
Key elements of the community engagement process
included:
 Stakeholder questionnaire
(Over 1,000 responses received!)
 Parking Expert Advisory Panel
 Extensive community outreach including:
public open houses, City board and commission
meetings, a City Council Work Session, and
ongoing website updates
COMMUNITY
ACTION ITEMS
6. Integrated Access Management Approach
» Parking management programs will support an integrated,
multimodal approach to Downtown access. Parking programs
should emphasize good urban design, walkability, and strong
support for transportation alternatives.
A. Optimize the use of existing parking resources before
building new facilities.
B. Encourage downtown employers to provide mobility options
and programs to reduce parking demand.
C. Support bicycling through the provision of quality end of
trip facilities such as bicycle racks and other amenities
associated with bicycle travel. Support the provision of
varying types and designs of bicycle parking for a diversity
of users including visitors, customers, and employees.
D. Develop criteria for placement and use of electric vehicle
charging stations in public facilities, both on- and off-street.
E. Encourage the use of carpool and fuel-efficient/low-emission
vehicles through preferential parking spaces in public
facilities, both on- and off-street.
F. Provide large vehicle parking within walking distance
of Downtown for visitors arriving by private bus and
recreational vehicles.
G. Identify and focus on synergistic strategies and programs
that can solve multiple parking and transportation needs.
H. Create a performance measurement program to evaluate
policies and strategies.
7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience
» Customer service will be the top-priority focus in the
delivery of the Downtown parking experience.
A. Develop a clear and identifiable marketing, education, and
communication strategy for the parking program.
B. Utilize new technologies that enhance the customer experience,
such as cell-phone apps that identify available parking spaces.
C. Establish fines and enforcement that take a “common
sense” approach to creating compliance and safety.
Revenue generation is not the primary motivation for the
enforcement program.
D. Ensure that parking facilities are attractive, clean, safe, easy
to use, and inviting.
E. Provide ways for customers and visitors to park on-street for
longer than two hours without
encouraging Downtown employees
to use the on-street parking.
8. Partnering with Downtown Business and
Downtown Management
» Downtown businesses and parking stakeholders will be strong
partners in Downtown parking management decision-making.
A. Create a new parking organization made up of public and
private stakeholders to help guide parking decisions. The
details of implementation could be explored by an ad hoc
committee appointed by City Council.
B. Establish a “parking welcome program” for new businesses.
C. Continue direct engagement with business entities and
stakeholders through various forms of outreach and active
participation in boards, committees and activities.
9. Funding
» The City’s parking program should be self-funded. Revenues
from parking-related activities should be reinvested in the
parking program. Excess revenues should be retained for use
ATTACHMENT 2
1
2
3
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 13, 2012
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238
Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140
Staff Support: Molly North 970‐224‐6112
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Joe Piesman
Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson
Transportation Board: Shane Miller
AT LARGE PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
ABSENT
At Large: TBD
At Large: TBD
Colorado State University: Joy Childress
Poudre School District: MacKenzie Mushel
Senior Advisory Board: TBD
UniverCity Connections: TBD
City of Fort Collins:
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator
Garry Steen, Transportation Board Chairperson
Jim Szakmeister, Police Captain
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner
4
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Parking Plan
Timothy Wilder –
Did everyone get a copy of the policies and overview documents?
We started this project in May with our first round of public input. This is a multi‐
modal effort – we are considering car and bicycle parking. Issues include bicycle
rack design and location. Matt Wempe did counts of bicycle parking this summer.
In November we hosted our second round of outreach. We went to City Council and
they said we’re headed in the right direction. We’re here today with an overview: a
background to the parking plan, a map of vehicular occupancy, list of key issues
from stakeholders, and proposed ideas. Number six will be of the most interest to
this group. Holistically, we are looking at end‐of‐trip demand, including bicycle
parking, low emission vehicles, and parking. Also, number one talks about our
holistic approach to the project. Our first choice is reducing demand, not building a
new parking structure.
In reference to the policy document, staff has come up with this list, but we are
looking for feedback. It is a high level look at bike parking in downtown. Maybe we
can get a brainstorm going for action items to implement these ideas. We want to
have specific ideas about how to complete these action items.
Join open house on Thursday: 7‐9am at Opera Galleria and 4‐7pm at Aztlan
Community Center. Then we go back to City Council on February 28.
Josh Kerson –
I wanted to check again. Are the on‐street bike parking racks in jeopardy?
Timothy Wilder –
There is no plan to remove them. There is a policy that refers to those specifically.
The third bullet refers to that.
Kathleen Bracke –
We developed a policy to deal with the installation and sponsorship for on‐street
bike racks.
Josh Kerson –
I think that is one of the most important programs; they are very well used and
there might be need for one in front of Matter Bookstore. I’m glad they will remain.
Rick Price –
5
Surely there has been a study on the psychology of motorist parking. It would be
interesting to do the same psychological study for bicyclists. Maybe we need more
of those on‐street racks – not a downtown bike depot. Cyclists won’t use it.
Joe Piesman –
Will people want to use a rack at a bus station and come downtown for a drink?
Kathleen Bracke –
It is important to look at the different kinds of trips; we have to consider an eight‐
hour parking spot for employees versus a quick parking spot for a trip downtown
for drinks.
Timothy Wilder –
This is giving us a way to look at long‐term parking for people who are coming
downtown on the MAX.
Rick Price –
You should work with Police Services to determine where the bike thefts are
happening. Then provide secure bike parking in those areas.
Kathleen Bracke –
On a related note, Aaron is working on parking code to dictate bike parking
requirements for new development.
Dan Gould –
I think it is important to keep bikes dry as well as safe. It would be nice to have an
option that is more flexible than the boxes in the parking garages.
Josh Kerson –
One of the reasons people want to park in front of their destination is to keep an eye
on their investment. That is another value when you have racks right on the street
in front of hot spots.
Rick Price –
Secure bike parking to me means fenced and video taped.
Did you get what you needed?
Timothy Wilder –
That was good input. We want to get more specific, so keep your ideas coming.
6
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
February 15, 2012
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, and Communications Director, 416.2029
Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Clint Skutchan Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 224.6140
Kevin O’Toole Rick Richter, Capital Projects Manager, 221.6798
Eric Shenk Tim Kemp, Civil Engineer II, 416.2719
Mary Atchison Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 221.
Sara Frazier Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, 224.6140
Sid Simonson Timothy Wilder, City Planner,
Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, 416.2058
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Councilmember Ben Manvel Robert Lyle, Nice Car, 970.231.8311
Pat Jordan Ray Burgener, Trucker’s Group, 970.482.2988
Shane Miller Rick Price, Chair, Bicycle Advisory Committee, 970.310.5238
Olga Duvall
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 7:00p with a quorum present.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Parking Plan – Timothy Wilder/Randy Hensley
We are looking for feedback on the Parking Plan document you received in your packet. The memo
covered everything. This goes to Council for a Work Session on February 28 and for approval on
April 17, which is before the April Transportation Board meeting. We are incorporating feedback
from Council and from other Boards & Commissions into our documents.
Wilder: The project began in early 2011 with public outreach. A number of parking issues, captured
on the back of the brochure you received, were examined. Field data was collected including
occupancy and turnover counts, and an inventory of parking. A questionnaire was issued and results
tabulated. We had an expert advisory panel where five parking experts from around the country came
and met with a variety of stakeholders over a three-day period. They came up with recommendations
7
-DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
February 15, 2012
that were captured in the document we are discussing tonight. You can find it at fcgov.com/parking
plan. We took preliminary ideas to Council in November 2011. Council directed us to move forward
with those ideas. Staff put them together in a proposal for community discussion. Number 1 talks
about a comprehensive approach. On-street paid parking is covered in 3a. Multi-modal is item 6.
Number 8 is about partnering with businesses. We should have a draft Parking Plan for you to review
in March.
Hensley: Basic parking philosophy addresses 100% occupancy in the downtown area and an upside
down pricing relationship where our convenient parking is less expensive than less convenient
parking, causing people to avoid the garages and cruise around the block looking for less expensive
and free parking. It leads to air quality issues, pedestrian issues, etc. On-street paid parking is
designed to address those issues. We’ve done everything we can with the 2-hour time limit. The other
option is an appropriate pricing mechanism.
Frazier: Are you making a recommendation that something be done or that something specific be
done?
Hensley: There isn’t technically a staff recommendation at this point, but best practice leans toward
on-street paid parking as a solution. As a result of community discussions, if it ends up in the plan as
a recommendation, we will flush it out to see how it would work.
O’Toole: It seems that we should question free parking throughout the city.
Hensley: We are managing a public parking resource downtown. Front Range Village is private
parking.
Steen: Boulder and Cherry Creek abandoned the kiosk in favor of metered parking. Why?
Hensley: The back and forth trip is eliminated by meters. There was push-back on the Pay & Display
version.
Wilder: Boulder still has the Pay & Display kiosks.
Atchison: How do you meter parking down the middle of the road?
Hensley: That is an unanswered detail at this point.
Skutchan: Will you be adopting a similar document to the one we have tonight?
Wilder: It will look different. The final document will have more detail. The one you see tonight is
accessible.
Robert: How will we see the results as applied to a strategic plan?
Wilder: You will have the policies, guidelines, and specifics laid out in the plan.
Simonson: Will garage rates be lowered if on-street parking is implemented?
Hensley: There would be a differential. It is a supply and demand question. You want the right
occupancy rates on-street, which drives the pricing. The garage needs to be lower than on-street.
Wilder: We will be back in March with a formal proposal.
Hensley: You will have a packet ahead of time to read so you are prepared.
8
1
Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Economic Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting
300 LaPorte Ave
City Hall
February 15, 2012
11:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
For Reference:
Bill Timpson, Chair 493-3673
Council Liaison Wade Troxell
Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 416-6324
Wendy Bricher, Minutes 221-6506
Commission members present: Commission members absent:
Blue Hovatter Jim Clark
Christophe Febvre Sam Solt
Michael Kulisheck Stu MacMillan
Bill Timpson
Rick Price
Channing Arndt
Guests:
Ann Hutchison, FC Chamber of Commerce
Dale Adamy
Eric Sutherland
Staff Present:
Megan Bolin, City Planner
Wendy Bricher, Minutes
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Randy Hensely, Parking Services Manager
Timothy Wilder, Sr. City Planner
Agenda Item 1: Meeting called to order
Meeting called to order at 11:02 a.m.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of Minutes
Unanimous approval of minutes dated 1/18/12
Agenda Item 3: Public Comment
Eric Sutherland expressed his continuing concern with the financing of RMI2. He believes the memo
released regarding this issue is deficient and does not address his primary concern – that this project was a
giveaway. He stated four million dollars was approved for this project when in his opinion, would have
been sufficient at one million.
Financial Services
300 LaPorte Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
9
2
Agenda Item 4: Follow-up Discussion Regarding Previous Meetings
Rick Price presented his Bike Survey results to the EAC and a ppt presentation was presented for review.
He indicated that 536 people completed the survey with the majority coming from current bike riding
enthusiasts or participants. Christophe commented that he was surprised by the safety results. Rick
reminded him of the survey demographic who responded to the survey. Mike Kulisheck commented that
it is often that priorities change when a dollar amount is attached. Rick Price will draft a recommendation
motion for EAC to review at the March meeting.
Megan Bolin and Lindsay Ex provided an update regarding PDOD. On January 31, Council asked for
additional outreach before finalizing the new recommendation. EAC reviewed the original draft in
January and will further review the updated draft in April or May after the outreach process is complete
and make a formal recommendation at that time.
Agenda Item 5: Member Updates/Future Agenda Items Discussion
Megan Bolin stated that the Economic Strategic Plan Open House was a success and provided good
feedback to the consultants. A revised draft will be available for EAC review in the next few weeks.
Rick Price commented that one of the comments at the open house was that Fort Collins is not a “business
friendly” city. He stated that this seems to be a “left over” statement from years’ back and that it is no
longer the case. The EAC agreed to be attentive to this feedback and work to “debunk” those statements
if necessary.
Councilmember Ohlson stopped in to observe the EAC meeting. EAC members asked him to comment
on a few items including the Economic Health Strategic Plan, BFO public involvement, and EAC
recommendations to Council. He commented that he would like to see additional changes to the draft
Economic Strategic Plan as he sees the current version more of an “Austin” approach vs. a City of Fort
Collins approach. For BFO, he commented that the first four years were “crisis” mode and we focused
more on inputs vs. outputs. The 2013/2014 BFO cycle will include more citizen feedback (with a citizen
on each Results Team) and will focus more on “outputs” vs. inputs. As far as feedback/recommendations
given to Council, he would like to see more ideas/tweeks vs. just approval/disapproval of projects and or
ideas coming before Council. Bill Timpson also asked about his concern for Poverty in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Ohlson commented that we are moving toward the “triple bottom line” approach, but that
many of those types of services are already provided by the State, County, and Federal Government. It
was also noted that future revenue streams need to be more diverse.
Agenda Item 6: Annual Elections
Bill Timpson has been re-elected for the 2012 term as Chair. Blue Hovatter has been re-elected for the
2012 term as Vice-Chair.
Agenda Item 7: Economic Health Strategic Plan – Homework Review
Postponed until March.
Agenda Item 8: Parking Plan Update
Timothy Wilder, Sr. City Planner, and Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, presented the Parking
Plan Overview including why we need a new parking plan, the proposed policy and strategic direction,
and key parking issues. At the current time, the City is operating well, but we are not prepared for future
demand. Some items of discussion included public/private partnerships, funding issues, integration, end
of trip destination, and pricing. Questions were raised (and answered) regarding current garage
occupancy rates, value of downtown parking spaces, and upside down pricing; currently we are
incentivizing people to avoid garages and park on street.
10
3
After careful consideration and discussion after the presentation, the EAC made the following
recommendation to the Fort Collins City Council.
Christophe Febvre moved and Blue Hovatter seconded the following motion:
The Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission feels that parking in downtown Fort Collins
has significant and direct impacts on the economic vitality of this important economic district.
The Fort Collins Parking Plan has good recommendations, and the EAC generally supports the
plan. Nevertheless, the Plan document would be improved if an economic analysis statement
were added. The statement should highlight the short and long term economic risks associated
with the status quo and the opportunities created by the implementation of a sensible plan. As
with all city policies, attention to the impact on the “triple bottom line” of economic,
environmental, and social well-being is important.
Motion passed 6-0
Agenda Item 9: Jefferson Street Project Update
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation and Special Projects, presented an overview of the Jefferson
Street Project, primarily the sections between College Avenue on the west and Lincoln on the East.
Several options have been considered and included two lanes with bike lanes and parking, three lanes
with bike lanes and parking, and three lanes with a median and parking. The original plan recommended
a two-lane, but has since been revised to a three lane with medians following further discussions with
CDOT and various other entities. In addition, the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson will be
addressed. Current considerations include a roundabout or a signalized option with the costs estimated at
4.3 million and 2.7 million, respectively. The goals of the project are to calm traffic, increase safety, and
create better air quality. After discussion, the Economic Advisory Commission generally agreed with the
option that includes the median and parking as the safest choice. In addition, after discussing return of
investment, gateway considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, the Economic Advisory
Commission also supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson.
Staff will be seeking various funding sources and will make recommendations for the engineering phase
to move forward in 2012/2013 with construction beginning 2015 +.
The following email copies are included as an addendum to the minutes as public record:
From: Wendy Bricher
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:46 AM
To: Bill Timpson; Blue Hovatter; Bricher, Wendy; Bruce Hendee; Channing Arndt; Christophe Febvre;
Emily Wilson; Jim Clark; Josh Birks; Kane, Sarah; Michael Kulisheck; Rick Price; Sam Solt; Stuart
MacMillan; Wade Troxell
Subject: FW: Revisiting Jefferson Street
Good morning EAC,
I will be including the following email in the minutes as an addendum. To date, the EAC has not
weighed in as to whether they with to change their original recommendation of the 3-lanes, median, street
parking option. Thank you.
Wendy
11
ATTACHMENT 4
1
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
ON FORT COLLINS PARKING PLAN OVERVIEW PRINCIPLES
FEBRUARY 2012
City Boards and Commissions
Downtown Development Authority 2/9/12
Summary: Discussion around the concept of a parking organization. The Board
supported changing language in the Overview document from “Create” to
“Explore” regarding the a parking organization idea.
o Concern with idea of new parking organization. Haven’t clearly articulated
why this is needed and why the existing structure can’t involve
businesses. Concern over creating more bureaucracy.
o Committee of DDA/DBA members discussing parking organization
concept. Idea of accountability, ownership, authority over parking
decisions in the Downtown. Want to be able to continue discussion of this
idea.
o Think citizen leadership is critical in the Downtown.
o Don’t see distinction between parking and other services like Police.
o Could DDA recommend “exploration of a parking organization”?
o Agree with this approach.
o Can’t support organization idea for operations but maybe for funding.
o Long term funding for new parking garages should be the primary focus.
What is needed is money for building garage.
o Are you including the Mason Corridor [parking needs] in the project?
o Not against metered parking.
o DDA board unanimously approved changing language about parking
organization from “create” to “explore”.
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session 2/10/12
Summary: Discussion around the Transit Overlay District (TOD) and
neighborhood parking permit programs. Members were generally supportive of
the overall approach.
o Do you have data to relate parking needs to number of Downtown
employees?
o How are employees parking on the street if there are two hour time limits?
o Could the Downtown parking policies be applied to other areas of the City,
such as the TOD zone district?
o Can you speak to the idea that the residents should “bear a reasonable
cost” of a neighborhood parking program?
ATTACHMENT 4
2
o Don’t agree with Overview item 6E (providing designated spaces for low
emission vehicles). Unclear definition of a low-emission vehicle. Not
enforceable.
o If you don’t use high profile parking places for charging stations, then I’m
OK with it. There should be a charge associated with using them.
o Need to have a trigger point for implementing tools like neighborhood
parking.
o Has the TOD Overlay had an impact on neighborhood parking?
Bicycle Advisory Committee 2/13/12
Summary: Discussion about the need for long-term, secured and sheltered
bicycle parking in the Downtown and in particular with MAX.
o Are you planning to remove the bike racks on the street? I hope not; there
are additional areas needed.
o Like car parking, bicyclists like to park near the front door of businesses.
o Maybe we don’t need a bicycle station because people want to park close
to businesses.
o On the other hand, a bicycle station would help with bicyclists using MAX.
o The bike racks like the one in front of the Rio are heavily used.
o Need to look at where the bike thefts are to find out where secure bicycle
parking is needed.
o The key terms are: Sheltered and Secure bicycle parking. Maybe like
boxes. Need to have dedicated space.
o Need fenced, enclosed, video-surveillance bicycle parking, perhaps in
alleys.
Economic Advisory Commission 2/15/12
Summary: Discussion primarily centered on the issue of the economic impacts of
parking and how an analysis was needed to quantify those impacts.
o What is the occupancy of the parking garages?
o Happy Lucky Teahouse: the notion of public-private partnerships to enable
public use of private lots through cooperative agreements is a good one.
o Parking has a large impact on economics, but not sure pick out one
specific idea for recommendation by the EAC is a good idea.
o Upside-down parking pricing: what did the expert advisory panel come up
with on this issue?
o Is there resistance from Downtown store owners to the idea of on-street
pay parking?
o Have you determined how much revenue on-street pay parking would
generate?
o Question about students parking overnight or all-day.
ATTACHMENT 4
3
o Have you considered including a statement about the economic health
goals of the project?
o Has there been an economic analysis of the impact of parking?
o What was the impact of Otterbox on garage parking?
o Need to include data points in the Plan.
o We’re not seeing a direct connection to the problems, so need to show us.
o Talk about the opportunities with businesses – e.g., vibrancy created by
the proposed ideas.
o EAC is drafting a statement for Council about the need for an economic
analysis and discussion of the economic opportunities in the Plan.
Transportation Board 2/15/12
Summary: Discussion centered around on-street pay parking, in particular
around the technologies and pricing structure.
o What recommendation are you making?
o Will you come up with a specific proposal to do these suggestions and
recommendations (around metered parking)?
o Question the status quo of free parking.
o Cherry Creek and Boulder: why did they abandon pay and display
meters?
o CSU still has pay and display, and pay by stall number in the new garage.
o How would you meter the center parking?
o What will the ideas in the Overview document look like as part of the
Plan?
o Will you lower the garage rates if you do on-street pay parking?
o The garages are pretty cheap now.
o Valet parking – how is this project going?
o Can we have covered bike parking in the garages?
Air Quality Advisory Board 2/27/12
(notes to be handed out at Council Work Session)
Other Meetings
UniverCity Connections 2/7/12
Summary: Discussion around neighborhood permit parking program,
public/private partnerships, cell phone applications.
o Prefer not charging residents for a neighborhood permit parking program.
Find a way to charge users coming into the neighborhood.
o Support the thinking about charging residents for the program, as the
streets are public rights-of-way.
ATTACHMENT 4
4
o Support public-private partnerships for new parking.
o More outreach to students about parking in neighborhood needed and
about reducing the need for cars.
o Like what I see here (in overview document).
o Like idea of a cell phone app.
Downtown Business Association 2/8/12
Summary: Brief discussion about a subcommittee that is working on the idea of
a parking organization
o Are there parking issues outside of Downtown?
o Is the River District included in the Parking Plan?
o I will have an upcoming meeting with the City Manager.
o The idea behind a new organization is shared authority and shared
accountability.
Chamber of Commerce 2/10/12
Summary: Discussion and concern over the maximum parking requirements
everywhere and not building enough parking. Concern over proposed parking
impact fee. Discussion about the relationship between MAX and parking needs,
and bicycle racks in garages.
o How much parking will be needed with the Mason Corridor?
o How would you reduce parking demand (item 6B in the Overview
document)?
o Discussion about TOD and parking minimums/maximums.
o Parking coordinator – don’t like the idea of adding another staff person to
do this.
o Would parking funds to back into the general fund?
o Discussion about paid parking and time limits – has there been a
discussion with the DBA?
o Not enough parking in office parks (and retail). Boardwalk/JFK, any new
offices, Zquila on Harmony Rd.
o Like the idea of incentives rather than parking impact fees.
o Is the parking occupancy map representative of the Downtown conditions?
o Parking map is misleading in that it labels private parking lots as 0 – 50%
occupied. They are not available for public use.
o Would like to see incentives for transit use. Also, want to see bicycle
racks in garages.
o Need to be clear on how the tax (fees) would be used. Don’t have a
problem with the charges if you can show that they would be used for
reducing the garage price, for example.
ATTACHMENT 4
5
o Would rather err on the side of too much parking rather than not enough
parking.
o Discussion about parking meter technologies. Need to test technology in
existing locations before putting out on the street.
Public Open House 2/16/12
Written or Verbal Comments
o Don’t think residents should have to pay for parking permit program.
o Interesting that idea is coming back to possibly having meters like we did
in the past (not necessarily against them), so it’s not a new idea.
o City should require employers to provide parking for their employees.
o My business has a policy requiring my employees park off-street, strictly
enforced by us, to allow patrons to park in the convenient on-street
spaces.
o Idea of public – private partnerships makes a lot of sense, versus the City
constructing large new parking structures alone (couple people agreed
with that approach).
o I don’t like the idea of meters (couple people agreed with statement).
o Should enable construction and operations of parking through a block-by-
block sales tax, like in Front Range Village. This way people don’t notice
or mind it as much as paying for parking directly, such as on-street meters
or paying in the garages.
o Don’t like the streetscape clutter with meters, but not opposed to people
paying for on-street parking. New technology like pay-by-cell phone & in
street pucks would be better.
o Want City to convert all of Mason public lot into permit parking for
employees working on or around Oak St.
o Why is Meldrum near Myrtle Street not striped for diagonal parking like
Meldrum Street near Otterbox? Striping would provide more spaces.
o Please change Willow Street to 2 hour time limits. The Saab dealer
constantly leaves old wrecked cars for days. It is unsightly and he abuses
his rights.
o Don’t think residents should pay for residential permit parking.
o Put parking back on Mulberry.
o Agree that there is a problem with finding parking on the street – my
customers complain about lack of on-street parking. But two hour time
limit enforcement works for me. Don’t like meters. Concerned that meters
would drive away customers.
o Can you consider permit parking on Spring Court near Creekside Park –
auto repair taking up spaces needed by my residents.
o Residents should not have to pay to park in front of their own homes. It’s
not their fault that CSU is close to their homes.
o Do not want to pay to parking in my neighborhood.
o Really need ideas to get people parking in parking structures.
o Really bad idea! My visitors should not have to get a parking permit!
ATTACHMENT 4
6
o No (reference to options for more than 2 hour parking). parking is already
tight and I want my customers to be able to visit/eat/shop with 2 hour
parking, not have it be all-day employee parking and thus limited customer
parking.
o Don’t like the idea of the public paying for electric charging stations.
o Please do not consider making Oak St. & Olive St. at Library Park a timed
(1 hr. or 2 hr.) parking situation. This parking is important as long term
parking for library patrons and employees.
o Alternative transportation modes – yes, I very much support this!
o I like the two-hour time limit.
o Complete the final design of Willow in sections from Linden to Pine; has
very high probability to be the next to develop. The City could be in a
position to quickly negotiate public-private construction funding.
o Consider modifying land use code to allow for smaller infill parking lots
with more modest design standards. Also, more modest design standards
for larger, temporary parking lots (particularly in the River District). Helps
to remove barrier to infill development.
o Hooray for bike lanes and bike parking!
Thumbs – up/Thumbs – down Responses
(Attendees put dots on strategies to indicate whether they were in favor or
opposed)
• Public-private partnerships with development to leverage new public
parking (2G) - 3 thumbs up
• Proactively pursue new off-street public parking such as in the River
District or Mason Corridor (2E, 2J) - 3 thumbs up
• Participation by development in the cost of new parking (2D) – 2 thumbs
up
• Downtown patrons will be given top priority for use of on- and off-street
parking in high demand locations. - 3 thumbs up
• Off-street parking in garages or surface lots will be managed primarily as
areas for Downtown employee parking. - 4 thumbs up
• Paid on-street parking with free up-front time (3A) – two thumbs up, six
thumbs down.
• Promote parking options for employees, including less expensive off-
street parking lots (3C, 3D, 3E, 4A, 4B) – two thumbs up
• Construct new parking according to demand and coordinated with on-
street parking management (4C) – one thumbs up
• Residents in neighborhoods near commercial areas or CSU should have
preferential access to the on-street parking on their block face. – three
thumbs up, one thumbs down.
• Residents to bear a reasonable cost of the program. (5A-5C) – four
thumbs down.
• Parking management programs will support an integrated, multimodal
approach to Downtown access. Parking programs should emphasize good
ATTACHMENT 4
7
urban design, walkability, and strong support for transportation
alternatives. – one thumbs up
• Customer service will be the top-priority focus in the delivery of the
Downtown parking experience. – one thumbs up
• Information about where parking is available using better signage and new
technology (7A, 7B) – two thumbs up
• Make the garages and other lots more attractive to encourage their use
(7A, 7D) – one thumbs up
• Options for parking longer than two hours on the street. (7E) – one thumbs
up, two thumbs down
• Downtown businesses and parking stakeholders will be strong partners in
Downtown parking management decision-making. – one thumbs up
• An ad-hoc committee of Downtown stakeholders to explore ways to better
involve businesses in parking management decisions (8A) – two thumbs
up
• The City’s parking program should be self-funded. Revenues from
parking-related activities should be reinvested in the parking program.
Excess revenues should be retained for use in the geographical area
where they are generated, such as Downtown or neighborhoods. – two
thumbs up
• Parking enterprise fund for operations, maintenance, infrastructure, etc.
(9A) – one thumbs up
• Dedicated portion of GID/TIF for parking programs (9B) – one thumbs
down
• Increased GID mil levy or new parking assessment district (9C) – one
thumbs down.
Bicycle Parking Policies Preferences
• The City will support bicycling through the provision of quality end-of-trip
facilities such as bicycle racks and other amenities associated with bicycle
travel - six thumbs up, two thumbs down
• Support the provision of varying types and designs of bicycle parking for a
diversity of users including visitors, customers, employees, and
employers. – two thumbs up
• Should the City take certain actions to incentivize or encourage Downtown
employers to promote long-term bike parking options at their expense? –
three thumbs up, one thumbs down
• Seek and secure public and private partnerships for sustainable long-term
funding for capital, operating, and maintenance costs for bicycle parking. –
one thumbs up
• Biennially re-evaluate bicycle parking allocation within the public right-of-
way in response to growing demand. – one thumbs up
• Policy question: Should the City construct a Downtown bicycle station in
the based on the existing feasibility study? - two thumbs up, two thumbs
down.
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
1
1
City Council Work Session
February 28, 2012
2
General Direction Sought and Specific
Questions to be Addressed
• Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to
process additional alternatives?
• Does Council wish to provide any direction on
the nine parking principles contained in
Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan
Overview?
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
2
3
Background
• Purpose of the
Parking Plan
• Includes Downtown
and Nearby
Neighborhoods
• Extensive Public
Outreach (May 2011
to February 2012) Parking Plan Study Area
4
Key Input
• City Boards and
Commissions
• Stakeholder Meetings
• Expert Advisory Panel
• Questionnaire
• Field Data Collection
• Council Work Session
(Nov. 2011)
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
3
5
Key Parking Issues
• Very high parking
occupancies:
Downtown core
• Employees parking
on-street
• Trolling and garage
avoidance
• Employees/students
parking in
neighborhoods
6
Key Parking Issues (continued)
• No funding for future parking
infrastructure
• Not prepared for a surge in
employment
• People don’t know their
parking options
• Need to prepare for MAX
• Lack of business
involvement/accountability
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
4
7
Parking Plan Fort Collins Overview
• Two key sources:
– Expert Advisory Panel
– List of Preliminary
Parking Plan Ideas
• Created to facilitate public
feedback
•Not a staff recommendation
• Some action items need
more processing
8
Highlights of February Outreach
• Extensive Public Outreach in February 2012
• Areas of agreement and disagreement
• Primary topics of discussion
– On-street pay parking
– Governance & business involvement
– Public-private partnerships for new parking
– Neighborhood permit parking
– Funding
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
5
9
Principles with General Agreement
1. Comprehensive Approach
4. Employee Parking and
Garage Usage Guidelines
6. Integrated Access
Management Approach
7. Enhancing the Downtown
Experience
10
Principles Needing More Discussion
2. Development-related Parking
Management
3. Coordinated On-Street and Off-
Street Parking Management
5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking
8. Partnering with Downtown
Business and Downtown
Management
9. Funding
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Work Session - Parking Plan
Update
February 28, 2012
6
11
Next Steps
Summer 2012 City Council - Request for Final Decision
June 26 City Council Work Session (3rd)
May 17 Planning and Zoning Board
May 16 Transportation Board
May 10 Downtown Development Authority
Draft Parking Plan Available for Public
Review
May 1
March-June Public Outreach and Stakeholder Input
12
General Direction Sought and Specific
Questions to be Addressed
• Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to
process additional alternatives?
• Does Council wish to provide any direction on
the nine parking principles contained in
Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan
Overview?
ATTACHMENT 5
in the geographical area where they are generated, such as
Downtown or neighborhoods.
A. Create a parking enterprise fund made up of new and
existing funding sources. The fund will be used to pay for all
aspects of the parking program including, but not limited to,
daily operations, maintenance, new parking infrastructure,
neighborhood programs, and parking demand reduction
initiatives.
B. Use existing funding sources including revenue from fees
and fines, General Improvement District (GID) #1 funding,
and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funding. For the GID
and TIF revenue, policies should be discussed and adopted
to determine how much of these existing funding sources
should be dedicated to parking programs.
C. Explore new funding options including creation of a
Downtown parking assessment district and/or increasing the
existing GID mil levy.
PROPOSED POLICY AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION
Parking Vision Statement
The City of Fort Collins will develop and manage parking as a critical component of public infrastructure, and
as a tool to promote and sustain economic health. Parking system management and investment decisions will
be guided by three primary concepts:
1) Develop and manage parking to support business and economic vitality
2) Create a balanced and sustainable parking and access management strategy for Downtown
3) Make Downtown Fort Collins a preferred, visitor-friendly regional destination
1. Comprehensive Approach
» The Parking Plan principles, policies, and actions work together
to provide a comprehensive approach to parking management,
rather than a set of separate elements.
A. Parking management strategies have an inter-related nature.
B. Individual recommendations in this plan should not be
considered in isolation.
C. Policies that address urban planning, mobility management,
economic development, neighborhood quality and long-term
funding must be integrated with parking management to
increase the probability of achieving desired results.
2. Development-related Parking Management
» The City’s development-related parking management
strategies will support and be consistent with the economic
health and urban design principles in City Plan and other
adopted plans. In general, that means parking strategies must
be sustainable while being fully integrated as an element of
community and economic development strategies.
A. Coordinate and consolidate parking into shared locations.
B. Integrate parking planning into the larger “Downtown
Business Strategy” context. Define development project
value—direct and indirect economic benefits.
C. Designate a central point of contact to coordinate all new
parking proposals and promote public-private partnerships
for new parking infrastructure.
D. Implement development parking impact fees for the
construction of new parking.
E. Support the development-related goals of the Mason Corridor
and the Downtown River District.
F. Review and, if necessary, revise City codes to ensure parking
supports City goals for the Downtown.
» Use strategic public parking investments to leverage
prioritized private development. Public parking investment
can be a powerful economic development incentive to help
spur private development of projects that align with adopted
community strategic goals.
G. Use public/private partnerships to leverage public parking as
part of new development.
H. Create new public parking capacity to promote smaller adaptive
reuse and in-fill projects distributed throughout the Downtown.
I. Develop guidelines to establish appropriate return on public
sector parking investments.
J. Proactively identify and acquire off-street public parking
assets before opportunities are lost.
3. Coordinated On-Street and
Off-Street Parking Management
» Downtown patrons will be given top priority
for use of on- and off-street parking in high demand locations.
A. Implement paid on-street parking, including new multi-space
or single-space credit card enabled meters that offer some
amount of free “up front” time.
B. Explore new parking availability websites, accessible on
mobile devices, incorporating a “pay-by-cell phone” option.
C. Establish cooperative efforts between the City and
employers to reduce on-street parking by employees in high
demand areas.
D. Promote off-street parking options for longer-term parking
including the management of off-street garages for the
general public as a less expensive option to on-street parking
and enhancements to pedestrian connections and amenities.
E. Re-evaluate parking allocation within public lots/structures
in response to growing demand for off-street parking.
4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines
» Off-street parking in garages or surface lots will be managed
primarily as areas for Downtown employee parking.
A. Provide incentives and disincentives to shift employees away
from parking in high-demand locations.
B. Promote better utilization of parking garages and other
off-street spaces through innovative permit programs and
the involvement/cooperation of Downtown businesses.
C. Develop a strategy for construction of new parking
infrastructure when existing infrastructure and programs are
insufficient to meet parking demand, but only in a manner
that is coordinated with the on-street parking management
program.
5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking
» Residents in neighborhoods near commercial areas or CSU
should have preferential access to the on-street parking on
their block face.
A. Ensure residents benefiting from a parking permit program
bear a reasonable amount of the costs of providing and
administering the preferential access.
B. Develop criteria to determine when a residential permit
program will be implemented, such as what percentage
of residents must agree to the program before it is put in
place.
C. Develop other residential permit program criteria, such as
how to verify residency, pricing of permits, and number of
permits per residence.
ACTION ITEMS
ACTIONITEMS ITEMS ACTIONITEMS ACTION
ACTION ITEMS
ACTIONITEMS ITEMS ACTION
ACTION ITEMS
ACTION ITEMS
For Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
We Want Your Feedback!
Your comments are very important to us! This document
is a high-level overview of the Parking Plan as of January
2012, and is intended to generate additional discussion
and comment. Any feedback we receive from this
overview will be used to craft a draft plan. A draft plan,
when ready, will be available on fcgov.com/parkingplan.
Ways to get involved:
O V E R V I E W
JANUARY 2012
V3
Why a Parking Plan for Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods?
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan led to improvements in Downtown parking, but there are a number of issues yet to
be resolved, and changes in conditions since 2004 need to be addressed. The new Parking Plan will focus on unsolved
problems and high-priority concerns identified by stakeholders. The following list provides some examples of these issues
and concerns:
 As housing, jobs, and commercial activity grows in
Downtown, what are the best ways to manage the
supply and demand for parking?
 Do we need more parking infrastructure?
If so, how do we pay for it?
 How can the management of parking also support
the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus riders?
 Are the City’s parking policies regarding new
development adequate to achieve the City’s
higher-level goals for sustainability, urban design,
and overall mobility management?
 How can customer service regarding parking
options be improved?
 What new policies are needed to address the
impacts of parking in neighborhoods near
Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU)?
Timothy Wilder
Parking Plan Project Manager
twilder@fcgov.com
(970) 221-6756
Randy Hensley
Parking Services Manager
rhensley@fcgov.com
(970) 416-2058
 Submit any comments about this overview by February 22, 2012
(use contact info below)
 Get project updates at fcgov.com/parkingplan
 Attend a meeting in February (more info on fcgov.com/parkingplan)
 Watch City Council Work Session on February 28, 2012
 Attend City Council Hearing on April 17, 2012