Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-27 Parking Advisory and Recommendation Committee Minutes - DraftTown of Reading c C c I V E D Meeting Minutes TCWIN CLERK RE,4.. l 1G, i'AA. ' JII,gOPp' 2021 NOV 16 AM 8:51 Board - committee - commission - council: Parking Advisory & Recommendations Committee Date: 2021-10-27 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Draft Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Bernard Horn, Sarah Brukilacchio, Chris Haley, Tom O'Connor, Karen Rose -Gillis, John Weston, Dan Dewar, Jay Jackson Members - Not Present: Vice Chair Liz Whitelam Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, DPW Director Jane Kinsella, Assistant DPW Director Chris tole, Town Engineer Ryan Percival Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Julie Mercier Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely on Zoom. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM. The Committee started off by reviewing minutes from their last meeting. Mr. Weston made a motion to accept the minutes from 10/13. Ms. Rose -Gillis seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Mr. Horn requested information from the DPW and Engineering staff regarding angled parking and handicap parking. Mr. Weston clarified that the survey results include data about the number of people with handicap permits and their comments regarding whether we have enough handicap spaces downtown. He asked Mr. Percival to clarify whether we have enough handicap spaces from a regulatory standpoint, and to opine on different loading/unloading requirements for handicap spaces. Mr. Percival explained that the 2010 ADA guidelines require 1 handicap space per 20 or 25 regular spaces. Out of the total handicap spaces, 1 out of every 6 has to be a van space. He said that handicap parking on public ways is not required because there is not room for an unloading aisle. He offered to provide data on our inventory downtown. He noted that the downtown was redone in 2008/2009 and some areas, specifically the CVS lot, may not meet requirements. If changes to striping are made, today's standards must be met. Mr. Weston noted that being in compliance doesn't necessarily mean we meet the need, and stated that he has no idea if we meet the need or not. He asked staff if we have a sense of whether we meet the need. Mr. Percival opined that it is a good question and he is not sure. Page 1 1 He noted that if we find out there is a need for more spaces, we can add some in when we re -stripe, but he cautioned that handicap spaces are for one user group only. Mr. Percival noted that the Ash Street lot has accessibility issues and cannot accommodate a handicap space. He said that Haven Street and the CVS lot may end up with more when they are redesigned/re-striped. BETA group has looked into other areas downtown where handicap spaces can be located, but many locations aren't feasible for various reasons. He said it will be studied as part of any re -design downtown. Ms. Mercier noted that a handful of years ago one resident contacted her about relocating an existing handicap space to make it easier for handicap users. She stated that is the only time she can remember someone from the public mentioning it. Mr. Haley asked if it is possible to have joint handicap/15-minute spaces. Mr. Percival noted that people with a handicap hangtag can park anywhere, but a particular space cannot have a handicap regulation combined with another regulation. He offered to look into it. Mr. Jackson opined that it seems legally slippery and could be confusing for users. Mr. Percival noted that public safety officials have a hard time enforcing short-term spaces like 15 -min or 30 -min spaces because the enforcement officers cannot make the rounds quickly enough. On the other hand, he commented that a maximum of 2 hours may be too short if we want to encourage people to stay and shop downtown. He referred to the Nelson Nygaard study which was looking at utilization and targeting turnover. Mr. Haley asked if we can get data on how many people have handicap permits in Town. Mr. Percival stated that we can ask the Police Department, but it may not be something they can make available. Ms. Mercier noted that it may not reflect actual need. Ms. Rose -Gillis commented that our local numbers won't capture people who come to Reading from other towns. Ms. Brukilacchio asked for Mr. Percival to share his thoughts on handicap spaces after reviewing the survey data. She asked whose job it is to evaluate handicap parking and determine where it goes. Mr. Percival said it falls under Engineering and usually is triggered by re -paving. He reiterated that the Town is not required to put them on roads because it is hard to meet ADA safety standards with parallel parking. He commented that he will review the survey data, but that to -date he hasn't seen or heard of an additional need but that it may be warranted in certain localized areas. Mr. Jackson asked about the Haven/High streetscape redesign. Mr. Percival noted that a brief presentation was given by BETA at the Economic Development Summit. Mr. Weston asked staff if we were involved in locating the EV charging stations in downtown, and noted that he was surprised we would give up prime parking spaces for people to juice up their vehicles. Mr. Percival noted that it was proposed by RMLD and that he was brought in after the grant was awarded. He explained that RMLD looked at where they had infrastructure in place, and where they would get the biggest bang for their buck. Mr. Weston noted that spaces dedicated to EVs cannot be used by others, and that he disagrees with the one located in front of Christopher's in the Ash Street lot. Mr. Percival noted that EV signs are not MUTCD signs and are not in our parking regulations, and thus not enforceable by the Police Department. He noted that regulatory and enforcement ability for EV spaces may be coming soon. Mr. Jackson asked about the No Idling signs in school parking lots. Mr. Horn noted that they are primarily located where there is an exhaust or an intake for a building. Mr. Horn went back to the handicap spaces, noting that there are many spaces and are hardly ever used, which conflicts with the survey data. He asked if there is any possible way Page 12 to dynamically locate handicap spaces so people can reserve them. Mr. Percival noted that ADA compliance is in part location -based; proximity to services, crossings, etc. matter. Mr. Horn asked how many businesses have been approved under 40R to not have parking because they are within 300' of a municipal lot. Mr. Weston reminded the Committee that the new commercial is replacing single -story commercial, and that the overall commercial square footage has decreased. Questions were asked regarding use and enforcement of handicap spaces. Mr. Percival clarified that there is no time limit on handicap spaces. He noted there is no requirement for the van aisle to be on the right or left of the space, and that the space near Venetian Moon could be moved further down if other conditions are met. He stated that it is where it is because of the handicap ramp in the sidewalk. Mr. Weston asked about overnight parking during storm events. He stated that there used to be a ban between November and April, which changed a couple years ago and is only during storm events. He asked what people are supposed to do downtown during storm events and if there is a place for people to park. Ms. Mercier offered to follow up with public safety to find out what the protocol is. Ms. Brukilacchio noted that new residents have been asking about visitor parking. She suggested a wayfinding and parking map for new residents. Mr. Jackson asked Mr. Percival about pedestrian phasing in signals on Main Street, noting a potential change that would allow for another pedestrian phase. Mr. Weston chimed in that certain signals are too old for this modification, so it will depend. Mr. Horn noted that an investigation of this should be done. Ms. Brukilacchio commented that many people in the survey said they aren't comfortable crossing Main Street, Mr. Horn asked Mr. Percival to discuss angled parking versus parallel parking on Main Street and other busier streets. Mr. Percival explained that angled parking requires a larger road layout because cars stick out further. He noted that it fits on lower Haven. Mr. Horn asked if a perpendicular configuration would enable more spaces than angled spaces. Mr. Percival said yes, but again, perpendicular spaces require an even larger road layout than angled spaces. Mr. Jackson asked if the Town has considered reverse angled parking and the safety benefits of it. Mr. Percival commented that it occurs most often in parking lots and is a tricky maneuver to make. Mr. Jackson listed off a number of safety benefits - unloading from the trunk, unloading children, etc. Mr. Percival noted that they have been around for awhile, but still are not the standard. Mr. O'Connor asked about an App that can show where spaces are available. Mr. Weston noted that it is being implemented in CA and Austin, TX, and that it is a fairly simple system with a magnetic loop in the pavement that senses the mass of a car and feeds into a signal. It can be tied into parking management and parking enforcement; users pay based on the exact time they are parking. Mr. Weston noted that it is the future and he's not sure Reading is quite there yet. Mr. Haley stated that Encore Casino uses it. Ms. Brukilacchio noted that once the parking map is up on the website, we can link a QR code from parking signs to parking map. Mr. Haley asked about the possibility of us digging to create underground parking. Mr. Percival noted that he is not aware of any environmental issues, but it comes down to a cost benefit analysis. Anything can be engineered, just a matter of how much Town wants to spend. He stated that there have been no geotechnical reports or estimated seasonal high groundwater established under the CVS lot; he doesn't know what is there. He also noted that PTTTF stayed away from proposing a parking garage because going rate for it is high. Mr. Weston noted that he spent some time working through the Reading case for a parking garage or deck, and looking at other challenges that could arise as a result. He is putting together a range of prices and is happy to try and help answer the question and understand whether it could be possible and would be something the community might want to invest in. He stated that parking garages today typically cost $50-$60k per space, with not a lot of complexities. The more you add, the more it costs. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that the Nelson Nygaard study identified a management and allocation issue, not an overall parking supply problem. He noted that kiosks can provide flexibility and asked about considerations for bike parking, mentioning that Cambridge uses really good guidelines. Ms. Mercier reported out on how the Town approaches bike rack purchasing & guidelines, and noted that a bike shelter was delivered to Town today and will be installed in the coming months by the raised platform at the depot. Mr. Weston noted that he will prepare more information about the parking garage idea for an upcoming meeting. The Committee thanked DPW and Engineering staff, and they left the meeting. Ms. Rose -Gillis went through the combined proposals for recommendations. Mr. Haley and Mr. Jackson complimented her efforts. Ms. Rose -Gillis noted that she likes Mr. O'Connor's suggestion that kiosks be free to seniors, which would be a really nice gesture, and suggested that maybe seniors could have placards they hang in their windows. Ms. Rose -Gillis mentioned use of the Town Hall parking lot. Ms. Mercier noted she gave a brief update to PTTTF this morning and mentioned it among other new ideas suggested. She reminded the Committee that they need to present a list of recommendations to PTTTF at an upcoming PARC meeting. Mr. Weston suggested that the items in the document be grouped - some are related to enforcement, some to education/communication, some regulatory, etc. Mr. Horn asked for some background information on why the Town switched certain areas from 2 hours to 4 hours. Ms. Mercier gave some background and noted some unintended consequences. Ms. Rose -Gillis asked for the Committee to talk about kiosks. She thinks they would make sense. Mr. Jackson asked if businesses can validate for their customers and how that works. Ms. Mercier noted that kiosks provide a lot of flexibility and validation is an option. She can review the information provided by the consultant and report back. Mr. Haley suggested up to 2 hours free with kiosk. Mr. Horn asked how parking validation works. Mr. O'Connor mentioned he likes the idea of validation, and recommended that the BID Steering Committee be looped into the conversation. Mr. Horn mentioned leakage that's happening specifically related to people who no longer use CVS in Reading. Mr. Weston noted that people will go to big box places with convenient parking, which is what it is, and that will continue. People are drawn to downtown Reading because of specialized businesses like Whitelam Books. The Town does not need to strive to meet the need of a suburban strip mall; we need to function like a downtown with destination retail. Ms. Rose -Gillis brought the conversation back to kiosks and recommendations Page 1 4 Ms. Mercier suggested that the rest of the members email their ideas to Ms. Rose -Gillis and offered to help Ms. Rose -Gillis compile and categorize them to see where there is agreement and disagreement. She also offered to create a visual representation of some of the ideas. Mr. Haley asked if anyone is against kiosks. Mr. Horn is against them, has had negative experience with Pay -by -Plate. Mr. Dewar is in favor. Discussion of kiosks and downtown complexity ensued. Discussion of whether to make specific recommendations or give PTTTF and Select Board list of options. Mr. Weston and Mr. Jackson want to make specific recommendations. Mr. Horn wants to present options. Committee discussed what their goal and charge is. Committee discussed what to show public at forum. Mr. Haley suggested focusing on 3 big ideas. Ms. Rose -Gillis suggested broad ideas without too many details to get a feel for how people think about things. Mr. Weston noted that the Committee is unlikely to figure out recommendations within the next two weeks. He reminded everyone that this problem has been brewing for 12 years, and is not going to be solved in 4 months. Ms. Mercier showed the map of the Hamden Yard Lot. The Committee agreed that a kiosk is not warranted in that lot. Mr. Horn asked if the Committee agrees that the issues are with Brande Court Lot, CVS Lot and Cobblestone area. Ms. Brukilacchio asked about the impact of new commercial spaces on municipal lots in terms of the 300' exemption. Mr. Weston noted that the CPDC has started factoring this into the discussion as they review projects, and started looking at feasibility of new businesses relying on municipal lots. He noted that almost all businesses downtown have this waiver, so fairness is important. He reiterated that we are not increasing commercial square footage downtown, just increasing residential - which comes with parking. Ms. Brukilacchio noted that she handed out surveys for 3 days and spoke with a lot of people. She noted some anecdotes with parking spaces being too small, overnight parking, AirBnB impacts on parking, and adding restaurants downtown. Mr. Weston noted that he is not seeing an issue in the evenings, which gets at the fact that use matters. Restaurants may not add to daytime parking demand, depending on their hours. Ms. Brukilacchio asked about ZipCar. Mr. Weston explained how the ZipCar model works, and opined that the projects downtown, while large for Reading, are not large enough to support the ZipCar model. Mr. MacNichol displayed the map of downtown parking regulations. The Committee discussed the MBTA lot and the leased spaces on High Street. Mr. Jackson asked for next steps. Ms. Rose -Gillis suggested pushing out the forum. Committee discussed getting preliminary public feedback at the next meeting and having the forum in December. Committee discussed what materials will be presented and what information/feedback should be sought. Mr. Horn recapped that members will send ideas to Karen to be compiled into "preliminary recommendations" for posting for the 11/10 meeting. He suggested that final survey data be presented on 11/10. Survey has been kept open because people keep responding. No date set yet for closing it, but could close it on 10/31 so it can be reported out. Mr. Weston pointed out that it's not great to present "preliminary recommendations" to the public before the Committee can review and deliberate among themselves first. He stated that there are a lot of dissenting opinions on things, which will play out on 11/10. He is Page 1 5 worried about the Committee seeming in disarray and losing confidence of public. People are still welcome to come on 11/10, but he does not feel that the Committee should be presenting any findings or recommendations without discussing them first. Committee discussed when to have forum and proposed some dates in November, December and January. Mr. Jackson opined that it's best not to rush and to do it right, and that while a lot has been discussed and accomplished, they have a long way to go. Others agreed. The Committee did not pick a date for the forum but will meet on November 100 to review survey data and draft recommendations. Mr. Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:22 PM. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Page 1 6