HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-20 ad Hoc Parking Task Force MinutesAd Hoc Parking Committee Meeting
December 20, 2006
There being a quorum present, the meeting of the Adhoc Parking Committee of
the Town of Reading was called to order by Gil Rodrigues, Chairman, at 7:32PM.
Present were Chairman Gil Rodrigues(Gil), Mice Chairman Jack Russell (JR); Members
George Katsoufis (GK), Tom Quintal (TQ), David Talbot (DT), Julie Thurlow (JT),
George Rio (GR), and Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner (Peter H). Two Reading
residents were present Adele Blunt and Janice Jones to survey the meeting. Also present
was an invited guest, James Gallagher, Senior Transportation Planner for the
Massachusetts Area Planning Council.
Mr. Gallagher distributed his draft report The MAPC Sustainable Parking Toolkit and
provided a report on recommended action steps to identify resolutions. He discussed
ways to determine what the major problems are in the community and emphasized the
benefits of local surveys rather than nationwide metrics as they are generally are used for
large scale development without space constraints.
Mr. Gallagher identified two areas to research availability of funding; Massachusetts
Highway Department of Transportation Funds and Federal Highway Funds. Mr. Talbot
asked about other programs to get cars out of the downtown area. Mr. Gallagher reported
that the Anderson to Lexington shuttle program was funded from 80% federal funds and
20% local business fiends however, it has been unsuccessful. He reported that the most
common successful programs are direct shuttle from commuter rail stations to specific
sites. He also indicated that shared parking arrangements such as the one introduced by
this committee are the most low cost and potentially successful accommodations
available.
Mr. Hechenbleikner asked if the MAPC had any experience with sticker programs for
which Mr. Gallagher replied that the MAPC involvement with parking programs for
communities is in its early stages. Mr. Talbot asked whether there was a price point for
fuel where people walk instead of drive for which there was no answer. Mr. Rodrigues
will provide Mr. Gallagher's email address for any members seeking additional
information from him or MAPC.
Ms. Thurlow reported that the Shared Parking Letters had been mailed to all businesses
through the Chamber of Commerce and via direct mail to all Real Estate Owners in the
Business area had been mailed. Mr. Hechenbleikner and Mr. Russell reported that 2
different property owners are working on a parking solution as a result.
George Katsoufis provided a report which identified parking demand for both employees
and customers based on both the square footage and current uses of properties in the
downtown area. In addition, the customer demand for the same area was measured.
Based upon IPE and ULI parking demand guidelines. Mr. Katsoufis reported total
employee parking needs of 350 units. The total needs for consumer spaces was
calculated at 601 units. The total number of available consumer/customer spaces is
identified by a walking survey at 125.
Tom Quintal disputed the Chamber survey which surveyed all businesses from Main
Street to High Street and Woburn Street to Washington Street and identified a deficiency
of 420 spaces. Mr. Quintal's resurveyed a portion the business and identified an
employee parking need at peak. Based on the timing of the survey's (pre- BOS parking
regulation modifications and post BOS parking regulation modifications) the addition of
52 leased spots on High Street and the leasing of certain sections in other areas of town,
the differing results of the two surveys were reconciled.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
Voted: That the conclusion of the conunittee was that there tivas a deficiency in
employee parking in the Reading Downtown area in the vicinity of 280
units.
The members clarified that this deficiency does not account for any commercial
vacancies in the two Haven Street properties known as the MF Charles Building or the
Tambone Building or any future development of other commercial areas of Reading.
Furthermore it does not account for any parking needs of any residential units built in the
downtown area as a result of the mixed-use zoning options which could include 24 hour
access requirements. Finally, it does not include employees parking in abutting
residential neighborhoods.
The motion carried with 5 votes. George Katsoufis was opposed to the above vote stating
that he felt the committee did not have adequate data to support an empirical conclusion;
David Talbot was also opposed to the above motion.
David Talbot stated that he was not opposed to employees parking in residential areas for
the day in front of residential homes as a solution to the parking issues in the downtown
area. Ms. Thurlow reported that employees in these areas are receiving notes from
residents not in agreement with Mr. Talbot; furthermore, depending upon the weather and
street conditions, it may be difficult for older employees to walk the distances now
required.
The committee discussed the vacancies observed on High Street where the Town recently
leased out of town commuter spaces to local businesses; it was agreed that the vacancies
would address themselves as certain businesses were filled. Ms. Thurlow, further
reported that certain Chamber businesses that were successful bidders were real estate
brokers and attorneys that spend time on the road or in court, but do require a location to
park when in their offices.
George Rio concluded that regardless of the exact number of spaces, there is a shortage
of parking and what are our alternatives to alleviate the situation.
Peter Hechenbleikner identified surface and subsurface parking as a solution. George
Katsoufis stated that he had reviewed the public and private parcel behind CVS on a
preliminary basis. He estimates that each floor plate could generate 60-70 vehicles. He
noted that each level increases the cost incrementally due to materials required and
recommended no more than 3 stories above ground with one story subsurface be
considered. Mr. Katsoufis agreed to research the cost of such layered parking and will
provide the layout and preliminary financial data at a subsequent meeting of the
committee. Mr. Russell stressed that the committee should keep all options open for
consideration including satellite parking for employees and shuttling them into
downtown.
Customer parking demand was discussed at length. All members concurred that parking
for customers/consumers in the downtown area as improved significantly based on the
recent regulation changes. There still exist peak times to include Thursday PM and
Saturday AM where there are customer parking issues in the downtown area. Tom
Quintal analyzed certain businesses included in the report provided by G. Katsoufis and
recommended the modification of these numbers consistent with his observations. 4
businesses were estimated to have overstated parking demand in the tables. Therefore it
was concluded that there was a deficit of 120 customer parking spaces.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was;
Voted: That the conclusion of the committee was that there was a deficiency in
parking units for customers in the downtown area in the vicinity of 120
units.
The members clarified that the deficiency does not account for any commercial vacancies
in the two Haven Street properties known as the MF Charles Building or the Tambone
Building or any future development and increases in density or development of other
commercially zoned areas in the downtown area. Furthermore it does not account for
any parking needs of any residential units built in the downtown area as a result of the
mixed-use zoning option which could include 24 hour access requirements for residential
occupants.
The motion carried with 6 votes. George Karsoufis voted against the motion as he did
not concur with the practice of making the data adjustments in that method.
Peter Hechenbleikner reminded the committee that there are commercial zoned parcels in
the downtown area that have significant development capacity whether as commercial
use or under the mixed-use zoning overlay option. The fixture parking demand
development of these areas or redevelopment of existing commercial properties into
higher density parcels needs to be considered. The committee acknowledged the need to
identify the potential future demand for parking based on zoning.
The committee needs to develop its report for the Board of Selectman to include
conclusions and realistic proposals to address the issues identified by this committee.
Due to the hour, the report from Tom Quintal identifying what he has ascertained to be
the concerns of the residents in the abutting precinct to downtown was postponed. This
item will be placed at the beginning of the next agenda to ensure its inclusion.
The meeting concluded at 10:10PM.
Respectfully submit,
Julieann M. Thurlow