The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/13/2017 - RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM (RP3) OVERVIEWDATE: STAFF: June 13, 2017 Seth Lorson, Transit Planner Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) Overview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to frame the issues, the goals, and history of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) in advance of the August 8 Work Session. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should the program be limited in scope, in terms of geographical size and enforcement days/times? 2. Should the program be targeting a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? 3. Have the pertinent issues been identified? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) was a recommendation of the 2013 Parking Plan and added to the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 24, Article V). The program was formed in response to the difficulty of residents in finding on-street parking near their homes, primarily in the neighborhoods around downtown and CSU. In the ordinance, the stated purpose of the program is to reduce “unnecessary personal motor vehicle travel, noise, pollution, litter, crime and other adverse environmental impacts; promote improvements in air quality; reduce congestion and/or hazardous traffic conditions in the neighborhood; increase the use of public mass transit; protect residents from unreasonable burdens in gaining access to their property; preserve neighborhood living within an urban environment; maintain the convenience and attractiveness of urban residential living; preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and the property values therein; and safeguard the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.” The first RP3 zone was created in 2013. The original rules contained the stipulation that a neighborhood must have an average a parking occupancy of 70% or greater (which is the industry standard for high occupancy in a residential area). If that threshold was met, a vote of residents would decide if the zone was implemented. The initial program attempted to customize each RP3 zone based on the neighborhood’s desires for zone boundaries, time-limited parking, and signs for parking restricted days and times. In 2015, staff identified a number of changes to make the process clearer and easier for residents and other stakeholders:  Consistent rules and enforcement in all RP3 zones. All zones (with the exception of Sheely) allow 2-hour parking for any vehicle, and enforcement on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. The purpose behind this change was to eliminate confusion over parking enforcement and to better accommodate guests and other visitors to the neighborhoods.  Participants in the vote must be property owners. In the past, renters (whom may only live there for one year or less) could participate in a vote, with long term implications for owners and future residents. The purpose behind this change was to ensure that the creation of a zone had sufficient long term support. June 13, 2017 Page 2  A minimum of 50% of property owners must participate for the vote to be valid. In the past, participation was often less than 30% voting to implement the program. This change ensures sufficient owner support for the creation of a zone.  An easier method of obtaining resident and guest permits was implemented, in addition to allowing visitors to park within the allowable 2 hour period. Current Program Status RP3 has grown exponentially over the four years since its establishment. With the advent of every new zone, vehicles are migrating to the adjacent areas without restrictions. Thus, the last couple years have seen a great jump in the number of zones and parking spaces coming into the program. Year RP3 Zones Number of Parking Spaces Number of Permits Issued 2013 Spring Court 19 17 2014 Sheely, Mantz 646 302 2015 Old Prospect 157 118 2016 University North, Old Fort Collins High, Old Town West 2,262 983 2017 University East, Western Heights, Lake Street 1,096 478 Total 10 zones 4,180 1,898 In areas with RP3 zones, average parking occupancy has dropped to 36% after implementation of an RP3, down from an average of 85% before the formation of an RP3. RP3 Program Questions Staff receives regular communication through phone calls, emails, and public meetings from residents, property owners, and other stakeholders about the program. Satisfaction questionnaires have also been used to gather information from participating neighborhoods. Additionally, staff is interested in Council’s feedback on a few issues in order to craft the program as envisioned. The following list of questions was compiled from these feedback sources: June 13, 2017 Page 3  Program size: Should the program’s geographical size (beyond neighborhoods adjacent to downtown and CSU) and enforcement role continue to grow?  Occupancy: Participating neighborhoods now have very low occupancy (36%) but areas directly outside the zone may have very high occupancy. Should the City be targeting more balanced occupancy?  Size of an individual RP3 zone: Should staff explore a minimum size for zone implementation?  Cost: Should the program be self-sustaining from a cost standpoint? ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 RP3 Overview Seth Lorson June 13, 2017 ATTACHMENT 1 Overview Framing the issues to bring options to the August 8 work session: • Program Background and Improvements • Current Status • RP3 Program Questions 2 Background 2013 - Parking Plan, Ordinance, BFO (KFCG) Purpose – Residents unable to find parking on-street near their homes, primarily around Downtown and CSU Ordinance – General framework for staff to develop the program 3 Implementation • Neighborhood initiated program • Custom zones: boundaries, enforcement days and times, 2-hour • Occupancy threshold: 70% • Residents vote to implement program • Designed for routine parking spillover into residential areas 4 Program Improvements • Consistency: Rules and enforcement same in all zones • Vote: greater participation to create zones • Vote: must be an owner to vote • Retract: created a process to remove RP3 zone. • User-friendly permit issuance: online 5 Vote Participation Zone Total Units Total Votes “Aye” Votes Mantz (2014) 108 46 (42.6%) 32 (29.6%) Old Prospect (2015) 101 29 (28.7%) 21 (20.8%) Western Heights (2017) 96 56 (58%) 44 (45.8%) 6 Current Status and Program Growth • 10 Weekday RP3 Zones • 3 zone expansions proposed • Many others interested • Occupancy: • Before RP3: 85% • Current: 36% • 6 CSU Stadium RP3 Zones 7 8 RP3 Growth - 2013 Spring Court 8 # Parking Spaces # Permits Issued 19 17 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Parking Spaces Permits 9 RP3 Growth - 2014 Sheely Mantz 9 # Parking Spaces # Permits Issued 665 319 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Parking Spaces Permits 10 RP3 Growth - 2015 Old Prospect 10 # Parking Spaces # Permits Issued 822 437 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Parking Spaces Permits 11 RP3 Growth - 2016 Old Fort Collins High Old Town West University North 11 # Parking Spaces # Permits Issued 3084 1420 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Parking Spaces Permits 12 RP3 Growth - 2017 12 # Parking Spaces # Permits Issued 4180 1898 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Parking Spaces Permits 13 • Should the program be limited in scope? • Geographical size • Hours and days (24hrs, 7days) QUESTION RP3 Program Questions • Occupancy: Low occupancy in RP3 zones, high occupancy just outside the zones (“whack-a-mole”) • Size: Minimum zone size • Cost: Should the program be self-sustaining? 14 RP3 Program Questions Whack-a-Mole: Streets with RP3 empty, adjacent streets full 15 Occupancy Resident Only Parking 16 Public Access Parking Current Program 36% Current Program 36% Lack of availability >70% Lack of availability >70% 100% Occupancy 0% Occupancy Before RP3 85% Before RP3 85% ? QUESTIONS Should the program be targeting a balanced occupancy in residential neighborhoods? Have the pertinent issues been identified? 17 THANK YOU 18