Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-14-017 - Three Hour Parking By-law - Review of Pilot Program Staff Report I r Community Services Department wvwuukitchenerra REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 7, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services (519-741-2200, ext. 7079) PREPARED BY: Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement, (519-741- 2200, ext. 7753) WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: March 25, 2014 REPORT NO.: CSD-14-017 SUBJECT: THREE HOUR PARKING BY-LAW— REVIEW OF PILOT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to continue the program of not enforcing the 3 hour time limit provision of the City's Uniform Traffic By-law 2007-138, between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, from April 1 to November 30, each year. BACKGROUND: At the April 8, 2013, meeting of the Community and Infrastructure Services Committee, staff presented Report No. INS-13-028 (copy attached) relating to a review of the City's general parking regulations. The report focused primarily on the 3 hour time limit and boulevard parking provisions contained in the City's Uniform Traffic By-law 2007-138. Subsequently, Council endorsed the following recommendations: "That parking on the boulevard (paved area of a driveway between the sidewalk and the curb/road edge) be permitted from December 1 st to March 31 st as part of a one year pilot project limited to the residential roadways within the geographic area defined as Ward 5, subject to the conditions outlined in Infrastructure Services Department report INS-13- 028; and, That a change in on-street parking enforcement practices (no enforcement of the three (3) hour parking limit from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., May 1St to November 30th) be endorsed as part of a one year pilot project; and further, That staff be directed to report back on the feasibility of a formalized parking exemption process including on-line reporting." 9 - 1 REPORT: This report discusses the implications of the 1 year pilot project relating to no enforcement of the 3 hour limit from May to November, as outlined in the 2nd recommendation above. It also touches upon two key elements of the pilot project: - The implications on the community, relating to staff's ability to respond to requests for service; and - The financial implications. Impact of not enforcing the 3 hour time limit provision The pilot program of not enforcing the 3 hour time limit provision overnight took effect on May 1, 2013. This was 1 month after the end of the typical winter overnight parking prohibition, simply resulting from the timing of presenting the report to Council. Going forward, any continuation would be effective on April 1St Complaints relating to this provision could be enforced up to 11 PM each evening, which would be the maximum time period to issue tickets. Given that this type of enforcement requires 2 inspections by Parking Enforcement staff, firstly to record the vehicles on the street and secondly, 3 or more hours afterwards, to issue any tickets that were appropriate, the initial inspections of each street would be limited to no later than approximately 7 PM each evening. The implications of this were that complaints relating to vehicles parked on streets after the mid- evening point, could not be addressed in the same manner as previously. Nonetheless, staff endeavoured to address each complaint as best as they could within the time restrictions as described. In 2013, the By-law Enforcement Division received 741 complaints related to the 3 hour time limit during the 7 month period of the pilot program. This compares to 938 over the same time period in 2012 and a 5 year average of 790. The decrease in complaints registered last year is likely directly related to the suspension of overnight enforcement. In terms of the sentiments expressed by members of the community, the best way to measure this is by way of feedback from our administrative staff, when speaking directly to the public. Staff report that, while there were members of the public who expressed some level of frustration at our officers not being able to address their concerns during the overnight hours, the numbers were relatively low when compared to the overall population of the City. Further, staff report that the frustrations expressed were somewhat mitigated when it was explained that our officers would do their best to address their complaints, although not necessarily at the time they wished. In terms of support for the pilot program, this was also measured by feedback from administrative staff. They report that the number of requests for parking exemptions was lower than previous years, for obvious reasons. Those members of the public that they did talk to, were appreciative of having the option of parking overnight for a variety of reasons. Having said this, it is important to note that the number of discussions that staff had with the public in this regard was relatively low. This is likely due to the public communication efforts undertaken to raise awareness, such that most members of the public understood the messaging and did not need to call staff directly. Further, there appears to have been little identified in terms of any impact on roads operations or road safety, resulting from the implementation of last year's pilot program. 9 - 2 Based on this review of the pilot program, staff is recommending continuation of the initiative of not enforcing the provision after 11 PM each night. Moving forward, there are essentially 2 options available. The first option is to continue with the approach taken in 2013, whereby a Council resolution provides adequate direction to staff to not enforce. The other option is to amend the Traffic and Parking By-law accordingly. Staff is suggesting the first option, a Council resolution, at this point. In the event that circumstances change, whereby overnight enforcement is deemed desirable again, the adjustment would be relatively simple, with the appropriate public awareness. The option to amend the by-law can always be available in future years. Regardless, this is something that could be discussed again, when staff bring forward a new draft Traffic By-law for Council's consideration. The Regional and lower tier municipal review is drawing closer to a conclusion. It is hoped that staff will be in a position to come forward to Council later this fall. Subject to Council's direction, staff will work with the Communications Division to develop the appropriate public awareness. The boulevard parking pilot in Ward 5, also recommended in Report No. INS-13-028, was just completed as of March 31St. Staff will be reviewing the implications of the pilot and will report back to Council at a future date. With regard to the 3 d recommendation from last year's report, relating to an on-line parking exemption process, staff continue to pursue this issue as part of the e-services component of the Customer Service Strategy previously endorsed by Council. Potential solutions have been identified and are being scrutinized. It should be noted that Council's direction with regard to the 3 hour time limit may have an impact on the exemption process and will be factored into the review as deemed appropriate. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: This request supports the Community Priorities of Quality of Life, as contained in the City's Strategic Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In 2013, 870 tickets were issued for the 3 hour time limit violation over the seven month pilot period (May-November). This compares to 2,630 tickets over the same timeframe in 2012. The resulting revenue impact from this drop in tickets is approximately $35,000. Based on this seven month period, it is reasonable to estimate the impact for the full 8 months to be $40,000. Therefore, the actual annual impact was lower than first estimated at $50,000 in report INS-13- 028. The By-law Enforcement Division has experienced challenges over the past several years with chronic deficits relating to parking fine revenues. The 2013 year-end deficit was $194,500 which includes the $35,000 impact noted above. Some deficit mitigation measures were applied to the Division's operating budget as part of the 2014 Budget process. If 2014 revenues trend similar to the actual experience from 2013, the projected deficit would be in the range of 9 - 3 $20,000 - $25,000. However, if the staff recommendations in this report are approved, the deficit would be further increased by approximately $40,000. A further, potential, impact would relate to retrofitting or replacing signage at the entrances to the City, where the by-law provision is referenced. This work would be required in the event that the by-law was amended, as referenced in this report. The Transportation Planning Division would undertake to ascertain the cost associated with this work, if necessary, as part of their asset inventory exercise. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This report includes feedback obtained by staff when talking with members of the public throughout the 7 month pilot program. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department Encl. 9 - 4 staff R R Infrastructure Services Department wwwv kitchener ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 8, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Ken Carmichael, Interim Director of Transportation Services PREPARED BY: Barry Cronkite, Transportation Planning Project Manager (519-741-2200 ext. 7738) WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: March 20, 2013 REPORT NO.: INS-13-028 SUBJECT: GENERAL PARKING REGULATIONS REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS: That parking on the boulevard (paved area of a driveway between the sidewalk and the curb/road edge) be permitted for a period of one year as a pilot project subject to the conditions contained herein, and further; That Council endorse a change in on-street parking enforcement practices (no enforcement of the three (3) hour parking limit from 11pm to 6am, April 1St to November 30th), and further; That staff be directed to investigate the feasibility of a formalized parking exemption process that may include on-line reporting, and report back to Council. BACKGROUND: Staff was directed by Council to investigate solutions to identified parking supply issues both on and off street that typically exist within residential neighbourhoods and the Laurentian West community in particular. According to concerns raised by constituents throughout the community, the current on and off street parking regulations are too restrictive to adequately meet the needs of their neighbourhoods. The demand for additional parking, particularly from December 1 st to March 31 st, is continuing to increase. Accordingly, staff were asked to investigate possible exemptions or changes to existing parking regulations and enforcement practices and to present options that may mitigate these parking issues. REPORT: The parking supply issues that exist in residential neighbourhoods have been the result, in part, of the incorporation in 1994 of more permissive residential zones, which resulted in a significant increase in the number of small lots in Kitchener, including those within the Laurentian West Community. This neighbourhood was designed at a time when the Municipality had adopted a 9 - 5 more compact subdivision development policy which allowed for single-detached dwellings on minimum 7.5 metre lot frontages. The combination of reduced lot frontages, the need for visitor parking; the concentration of street-fronting townhouse units, personal behaviour and choices such as increase in vehicle ownership and garage usage for something other than the parking of vehicles has affected the amount of area available to park in driveways. These factors, in conjunction with current on-street parking by-law regulations, also limit the number of parking spaces on the street between driveways. These conditions have resulted in a situation where residents are having difficulty in finding sufficient parking and cannot comply with bylaw regulations. These issues generally result in the following: - an increase in the amount and duration of on-street parking over the specified time limits - the blocking of driveways, and vehicles parked within the 1.5 metre driveway clearance regulation - parking within visibility triangles - parking over the sidewalk - parking on-street overnight - widening of drvieways, both legally and illegally - other by-law and zoning compliance issues. Parking in this fashion can impact the operation of the road and compromise both driver and pedestrian safety in the following manner: - restricted two-way traffic flow - delays and congestion for emergency vehicles - impeded access to driveways - obstruction of site lines between drivers on the street and the roadway as well as sitelines of pedestrians - pedestrians safety using the sidewalks or road edge in areas lacking a sidewalk - potential for damage to vehicles resulting from snow clearing and maintenance, - delayed maintenance operations. From a planning perspective, these issues were investigated and discussed at length in 2000 and resulted in a report to Council (BPS2000-44) regarding Residential Streetscapes. Council approved new zoning for residential areas that increased the minimum lot width for single detached dwellings, addressed garage width, garage projection and driveway width all with the intent to resolve parking issues in small lot subdivisions while maintaining the quality of the streetscape. As a result of these changes that Council approved in 2000, new subdivisions have been approved since that time do have more opportunity for parking that the situation that led to the initial concerns. Further, in 2004 Council endorsed the action plan for the Neighbourhood Design Initiative (DTS- 04-165). In this staff report the issue of parking availability was again addressed. At that time, Council supported the General Design Principle: "that City streets be recognized as an extension of the open space system, and that the City encourage streetscape designs that respect the surrounding context and improve the quality of the public realm." (DTS-04-164). One challenge identified in this report is the impact of the automobile to the land use pattern and urban fabric. The report recommends that greater attention be paid to creating environments for people, and not just cars. 9 - 6 Through a comprehensive review of Municipalities across Ontario, it was evident that all municipalities deal with similar concerns regarding parking, and more specifically on-street parking. And while the approach to on-street parking is generally similar throughout all Municipalities reviewed, there are varied approaches to potential solutions. OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE PARKING ISSUES Through the "Neighbourhood Design Initiative", conducted in 2005, additional research into methods for addressing on-street parking issues were considered. In report DTS-05-025, staff highlighted best practices from other municipalities in Ontario. Based on input from a neighbourhood design survey and consultation with the development industry, the report tabled numerous options for managing parking and the automobile in new plans of subdivision. The culmination of the Neighbourhood Design Initiative was the creation of a new On-Street Parking Policy and an Urban Design Brief for Suburban Development and Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centres. Both documents were approved by Council in 2007 (DTS-07-065) and are used today to guide decision making for new subdivisions. That being said, parking both on and off street is still an area of concern for many residential neighbourhoods throughout the City of Kitchener. Parking permitted on the boulevard Parking on the boulevard (considered to be the ramp portion of the driveway between the sidewalk and curb/road edge) is currently prohibited in the City of Kitchener as it has historically been viewed to pose various concerns related to visibility, maintenance and property damage. It has long been acknowledged that parking in this area can create a sight obstruction for traffic on the street and for residents reversing out of driveways, it can limit the visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk and can also lead to damage to street furniture and landscaped boulevards. These concerns are further acknowledged through enforcement activity. Records indicated that there were 84 complaints received in 2012 with respect to boulevard parking resulting in a total of 930 tickets being issued for this offence. Other municipalities that have permitted boulevard parking indicate that visibility, though a concern, is similar to typical existing legalized conditions related to backing out of driveways between parked vehicles, a relatively common occurrence. With proper care and caution, drivers should easily negate most potential visibility concerns in either instance. Furthermore, Operations has indicated that from a roadway maintenance perspective, parking on the boulevard presents less challenges and limits potential damage to public and privately owned vehicles. Additionally, vehicles parked on-street can result in plows needing to revisit previously plowed roadways to address snow missed as a result of the parked vehicle, thereby increasing maintenance costs. Other potentially affected departments and agencies were contacted (Engineering, Utilities, Planning, Fire Services). Planning has significant concern with boulevard parking, citing the following: City streets are recognized as an extension of the open space system, and the City encourages streetscape designs that respect the surrounding context and improve the quality of the public 9 - 7 realm (DTS-04-164). Through design, the boulevard is intended to contribute to the character of a street, district, neighbourhood or community, which in turn instills a sense of civic pride. Great efforts have been made to change the way we approach subdivision design to reduce the dominance of cars along residential streetscapes. Permitting vehicles to park in the boulevard could undermine these efforts and potentially compromise the character of residential streets. It is also possible that parking in the boulevard would have negative effects on the quality of boulevard treatments (such as damage to landscaping) which would have maintenance implications over the longer term. These considerations should be addressed in an ongoing monitoring program. Monitoring of this matter should also take into account the related issues with accommodating additional parking in residential neighbourhoods, such as minor variance applications to widen driveways, reduce setbacks to parking spaces, permit tandem parking and reduce visibility triangles. While Transportation Services understands Planning's concerns, we recognize that available parking is a critical issue for residents within our Community and therefore recommends that parking on the boulevard be endorsed by Council for a period of one year as a pilot. This will afford staff the opportunity to monitor the conditions that result from boulevard parking, and determine if this is a suitable, long term solution to address the ongoing parking issues throughout residential neighbourhoods. Transportation Services will work with Planning, Operations and Enforcement Services to develop an acceptable monitoring program. It should be noted that not all boulevards provide adequate space for vehicles to park, and therefore, minimum standards should be required to facilitate parking accordingly. The following outlines where parking on the boulevard could occur: • Vehicles, if parked parallel to the road, must be facing the direction of travel. • Vehicles must not park on the landscaped or hardscaped portion of the boulevard or access the paved portion of the boulevard by driving over landscaped or hardscaped portions of the boulevard. • The vehicle must be fully encompassed on the paved portion of the boulevard • All tires must be fully on the hard surface • No part of the vehicle can overhang the sidewalk or the curb/road edge. • Residents with abutting driveways must not overhang the projection of the property line. • No boulevard parking will be permitted within 15 metres of an intersection. • Only driveways providing access to single family, semi-detached and street fronting townhouses are applicable. Parking over the time limit/overnight Currently, on-street parking is limited to three (3) hours at any time, throughout the year, and is prohibited from 2:30am — 6:OOam from December 1St to March 31St. The general City-wide three (3) hour time limit and overnight prohibitions are in place to prevent streets from becoming used for permanent parking, to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of parking opportunities, and to allow for street maintenance. Allowing longer-term parking would have a negative impact on road maintenance, visitor parking, neighbourhood aesthetics, and could lead to resident disputes. Due to enforcement practices, a longer time limit is also virtually unenforceable. The complete elimination of the three (3) hour limit regulation would result in an increase in the duration of on-street parking, thereby reducing turnover which may encourage other illegal 9 - 8 parking and neighbourhood disputes. From a traffic operations aspect, increased on-street parking could also negatively affect traffic flow and access to driveways. In general, the concerns related to on-street parking are lesser in the evening/overnight, as there is generally less traffic, roadway maintenance (with the exception of snow clearing) and pedestrian activity. Because parking on street overnight between April 1St and November 30th is typically not a concern, Transportation Services encourages Council to endorse a change in enforcement policy for a period of one year. Should enforcement be directed to refrain from enforcing the three (3) hour limit during late evening and overnight (11:00pm — 6:OOam) time periods from April 1St to November 30th, it would mean that residents could effectively park from 8:OOpm-9:OOam on-street, due to current enforcement practices. This will also allow staff to measure the impacts that the change in enforcement practices has in the number of complaints received, exemptions requested and fine revenue lost. In 2012 there were 692 complaints relative to the three (3) hour limit resulting in 3,460 tickets issued during evening and overnight shifts. Formalized Exemption Process Currently, By-law Enforcement has an informal exemption process that allows residents to call into their department and receive exemptions to time limit parking as required for a maximum duration of up to a week per exemption. Staff report that there were 377 exemption requests approved in 2012. By-law Enforcement continues to investigate a number of more formalized exemption processes, which may include an online component, in an effort to better serve the community. However, it is recognized that the two pilots being recommended within this report could substantially decrease the requirement for a formalized process. Therefore, staff are proposing to monitor the impact of the proposed changes to enforcement in relation to the number of exemption requests received. This activity will be balanced against the potential resources required to develop a more formalized exemption process. Upon completion of this proposed pilot project, staff will report back with recommendations on the exemption process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: It is anticipated that the initiatives discussed herein will impact parking ticket revenue. Staff have reviewed the ticket counts and fine revenue received in relation to the three (3) hour limit during afternoon and overnight shifts as well as boulevard parking. Based on their analysis, the potential impact on fine revenue could be approximately $75,000 annually. It is important to note that parking fine revenue has been identified as a "chronic deficit" situation through previous operating budget cycles. Although some mitigation to this deficit situation was provided for within the 2013 Operating Budget, there is still the potential for a deficit to be realized in 2013. In the event that Council accepts the recommendations contained in this report, it is likely that this potential deficit will be intensified by year's end. Overall revenue impacts through the pilot projects will be monitored and included as part of a report outlining the results of these initiatives. 9 - 9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: There has been no community engagement at this point. A City wide communications strategy will be required pending approval of the recommended initiatives. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO Infrastructure Services Department 9 - 10