CR 92-101 Municipal Lot 500
.~
r
*'
, "'( y 0
/:'
Co
o P K \ ~
April 27, 1992
council Report 92-101
MUNICIPAL LOT #500
PARKING TIME LIMITS
ProDosed Aetion
The Parking Committee recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move to
deny request to change the ~arkinq time limits in Lot #500 from 3 to 2
hours. but to resign the lotto be enforceable on Saturdays at the
discretion of the Police Department."
The motion would continue enforcement of the 3 hour limit, but re-sign the
lot to allow Saturday enforcement.
overview
This change is being made at the request of business and property owners in
the area of Lot #500. Business, and property owners have requested that the
time limit be changed from 3 to 2 hours and to sign the lot for Saturday
enforcement. This request was made to accommodate customer turnover in Lot
#500, and discourage employee and long term parking in this lot.
The two major users of Lot #500 are Tait's Super Valu and Boston Subway.
These two major users along with the other petitioners, feel that 2 hours
is an adequate amount of time for customers to park and shop at any of the
businesses whose customers would use this lot.
Presently, 7 of the 8 signs in Lot #500 read "enforced 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
except Saturday & Sunday." The remaining sign reads "enforced 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. except Sunday." The petitioners are requesting that all the signs in
Lot #500 be changed so that they all read "enforced 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. except
Sunday."
primary
o
o
o
o
o
Issues to consider
What was staffs recommendation to the Parking Committee?
What was the discussion from the Parking Committee?
What impact will these changes have on parking in this area?
How much will it cost to reword signage and literature to reflect
this change?
What are the hours and days of enforcement in other municipal
lots?
Are there any other issues relative to changing the time limit in
Lot #500?
Does the Police Department have any concerns with this change?
o
o
SUDportinq Information
o Map
o Letter/petition from bus./property owners in this area
~~
Paul T. teinman
Community Development Specialist
r
Analysis
Based on the information above, the city council has the following issues
to consider:
o what was staffs reeommendation to the Parking Committee?
staff recommended the Parking Committee adopt the following motion: "Move
to approve request to change the parking time limits in Lot #500 from 3 to
2 hours, enforceable Mondays through Saturdays."
Staffs recommendation was based upon the number of businesses requesting
this change, and the feeling that decreasing the time limit will further
discourage employee parking in this lot.
o What was the diseussion from the parking Committee?
The Parking Committee denied the request to change the parking time limits
in lot #500 from 3 to 2 hours. This decision was based upon the fact that
there are businesses in this area, whose customers utilize this lot, which
need to have the 3 hour time limit. A representative of Berts Hair Company
was present at the Parking Committee meeting to reiterate this point. other
businesses refused to sign the petition for various reasons.
The Parking Committee felt that signing the lot for Saturday enforcement
would not have any negative effect on customer parking. The Parking
Committee voted to allow this enforcement to occur at the discretion of the
Police Department. Staff and Police Department have discussed that this
enforcement will not begin unless a specific request is made to start
Saturday enforcement in this lot. Lot #600 is currently signed for Saturday
enforcement, but is not enforced. The petitioners feel that simply by
signing the lot for Saturday enforcement will deter long term parkers from
using this lot on Saturdays.
o what impaet will these ehanges have on parking in this area?
The major impact a change from 3 to 2 hours would have on this lot would be
to force greater customer turnover, and also discourage employee parking in
this lot.
Signing the lot for enforcement Monday through Saturday will encourage
turnover on Saturdays, which is a day during which the Police Department
does not do regular enforcement.
A change in the time limit in Lot #500 may contribute to a higher demand
for parking in Lot #600, which is next to First Bank. Lot #600 is currently
designated a 3 hour lot.
o How much will it eost to reword signage and lit rature to refleet this
ehange?
It would cost an estimated $400 to resign all of Lot #500 to read "3 hour
- limit" and "enforced 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. except Sunday." Staff would recommend
using a larger sign, such as is currently in Lot #600.
The parking brochure has been in need of being updated for some time to
reflect changes in permit prices. Staff is planning to update the brochure
as soon as decisions are made on these most recent requests regarding Lots
#500 and #900.
o What are the hours and days of enforeement in other munieipal lots?
Lots 100, 200, 300, and 700 read:
o "Enforced 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. M - F"
Lot 600 reads:
o "Enforced 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. except Sundays"
Lot 400 (Ramp) reads:
o "No parking 2 a.m. to 5 a.m."
o Ar there any other issues relative to ehanging the time limit in Lot
#500?
All municipal lots currently have a 3 hour time limit. If Lot #500 were to
be changed to 2 hours, it would be the only lot with that designation. A
uniform time limit in all municipal lots creates less confusion among
customers and other users of these lots. An effort has been made in the
past to maintain the same time limits in all municipal lots to avoid any
confusion or hesitation on the part of clients and customers to come to
Hopkins and conduct business.
Some suggestions to minimize confusion created with changing signage:
o Examine constructing larger signs, such as are presently in
Lot #600.
o Make sure signage is clearly visible when mounted on the
light standards in Lot #500.
o Does the poliee Department have any eoneerns with this ehange?
The Police Department has expressed to Staff that they would not see a
problem with signing Lot #500 for Saturday enforcement. The Police
Department has also stated it would not create a problem for them if the
time limits in Lot #500 were changed from 3 to 2 hours.
Alt rnatives
Based on the information above, the city Council has the following
alternatives:
1. Adopt the motion as recommended by the Parking Committee.
This will allow the lot to be signed for Saturday
enforcement.
2. Deny the motion. Parking time limits will remain at the 3
hour level in Lot #500, and signage will remain the same.
3. continue this item for further information from staff.
- .~,
"
,
~
u.t
to
~
::)
z
CJ
z
-
>-
&I.
-
I-
Z
UJ
Q
t:
o
...I
...
-
:e
~
u.t
a.
-.. ... ...
--=_:~ ~ -:......... ,-,r-::-:;-. ,-=-.~ ~-~_ u ' -~.
i' ~! .0
---....: J L- _ _____ __.
_J _ ____ _~
- ....
.. ~..
D,m I [D~
1: ifITOIl . i
~~~.
l
f
...
ocom,
-' fTTrTll
I In Inl I r I,
"
',\
....
TO: THE HOPKINS PARKING COMMITTEE
1-/~-9z,,-
FROM: THE HOPKINS 500 BLOCK MERCHANTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS
WHERE AS THE CURRENT THREE HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION IS
AT LEAST ONE HOUR IN EXCESS OF THE TWO HOURS NEEDED TO SHOP
THE BUSINESSES SERVED BY LOT 500. WHERE AS THE "EMPLOYEES"
WHO ABUSE OR IGNORE THE INTENT OF THE RESTRICTIONS CAN EASILY
GET AROUND THE SYSTEM BY MOVING THEIR VEHICLE JUST TWO TIMES
DURING AN EIGHT HOUR PERIOD. WHERE AS THE J.C. 's BINGO
SESSION ON SATURDAY LASTED JUST THREE HOURS. WHERE AS THE
CITY PERMIT LOT IS GREATLY UNDER UTILIZED DUE TO ITS FEE AND
INCONVENIENCE.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
REQUEST THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. WE WOULD LIKE THESE CHANGES AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
1) INCLUDE SATURDAY AS A DAY OF RESTRICTED PARKING. (THIS
DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ADDITIONAL HOURS OF ENFORCEMENT ARE
EITHER DESIRED OR REQUESTED).
2) CHANGE THE TIME LIMIT BACK TO TWO HOURS.
3) ALLOW FREE PARKING IN THE 900 LOT NORTH OF FIRST BANK
DRIVE-THRU.
fj(4f~
~ft1
~ ;t{,(/(k
&kqrt'l ~/^
~~?~
W
~/ ~.
-!~41j~~
.
"2...... -"-" I /"" ~ /'/1 I 907' 1M /411{) 7:3 3 - ~-.r7()
,bUS7UAJ CS/7/L-J)ell/ v ;1'
QtiJe<::>~~O/{AJ )6)) Y1~ 133 3D3b
II
d
,,'"
1/
'(ta-v.J..-- ~ E n 10'" Av,,-
If) 1M ~~
IICP IOU;
/f- C j./Jr C id S
Iv\c. ; I\.\. kl" (~+ '-9
(-I c;J r .,/ (-I c "'~-
<;,. c:~
!foPJ(WS -S A1 Gfv~~
1<91'5"' MkllY sTR(~t11
~ ~'- u'j~
0' ;/ "\
t)tC~df(l5 {.(;(r.}o/}; 22- jC/.!7 /loE ., CCJ2--- "
U (r") l)
.'" - II'T! '/' , '
./'- -, - P,;- /' /
C::X 0 ~(... ,:;:" l..-/ "
.." \.^,
dJ~~
IN;t~ K
.
"-
\P~Rl /f7-LJ-So~ Y5!~ -
(t
t(
c;