CR 91-32 Restricted Parking In Lot #500•
•
January 29, 1991 CR:91 -32
RESTRICTED PARKING IN LOT #500
Proposed Action.
The Parking Committee recommends adoption of the following motion:
"Move to designate the 4th & 5th rows in Lot #500 to the East of 11th
Avenue as Customer Parking Only. This would be adopted on a 90 day
trial basis by the City Council."
The adoption of this motion is a change from the temporary changes
adopted by the City Council during a September meeting. The Parking
Committee saw several reasons for not making this change permanent at
this time. These concerns led to the changes in the current layout
and the need for another 90 day trial period.
Overview
In August of last year, the Police Department approached staff about
making adjustments to the parking within lot #500. At that time, the
parking lot had no overnight restrictions attached.
Staff made note to the Parking Committee that this change was being
made not for parking reasons, but for controlling loitering and
cruising. Staff does not agree that this approach is the ultimate
. solution to this problem. This action does create some concerns for
employee and customer parking for those businesses operating past
9:00. However, the police have made comment that they have little
ability to create a loitering ordinance which can address this
problem.
This item was approved by the City Council on a 90 day trial basis.
It is front of the City Council to review for permanent action or
changes as proposed.
Primary Issues to Consider
o Why had the police proposed this action?
o Has the temporary change corrected those concerns addressed by
the P.D.?
o What options were developed for adopting a loitering
ordinance?
o What have the effects been on the business community?
o What affects has this had on customer parking?
o Is this action similar to that in other lots?
o What comments did the Parking Committee have?
Supporting Information
o Memo from Police Department o Memo from Wynn Curtiss
o Lot #500 map
Brian Fritsinger
Economic Development Specialist
•
•
•
CR: 91 -32
Page 2
Primary Issues
Based on the above information, the City Council has the following
issues to consider:
o Why had the police proposed this action?
The police have opted for this change for the purpose of controlling
loitering. Area businessman and citizens had expressed numerous
concerns about the problems created by groups of young people parking
their vehicles and loitering about the area of Lot #500.
The complaints involved such things as intimidation and harassment of
potential customers, which has had an adverse effect on customer
traffic, excessive noise levels, and large amounts of litter left in
the parking lot.
o Has the temporary change corrected those concerns addressed by the
P.D.?
While preparing the report for the Parking Committee the police
responded to this question with the following response. "While
enactment of the parking restrictions did not completely solve all of
the problems, we believe that there was a significant reduction in
these problems."
At the Parking Committee meeting, the P.D. indicated that during the
limited amount of time that this has been in place, they have
effectively reduced the problems associated with loitering and
vandalism.
o What options were developed for adopting a loitering ordinance?
Captain Liddy indicated that the police department had contacted the
City Attorney about researching this issue. Our attorney made a
determination that it was very difficult to create an ordinance which
would not be deemed unconstitutional. Thus, no ordinance was drafted.
Comments in regards to this issue can be reviewed in the memorandum
from Wynn Curtiss.
o What have the effects been on the business community?
During the past 3 months staff did receive two phone calls from
employees of surrounding businesses in regards to this issue. Each of
these employees were questioning where they should park while working
late. One had received a tag for parking in lot #500.
Comments from Taits focused on how the police handled the situation.
This business indicated concern about the lack of tact used by the
police in enforcing this change. Too often customers were tagged and
•
CR: 91 -32
Page 3
had to follow up on their own to get the fine suspended. Staff feels
that if this area is to continue, more discretion should be used by
the police when enforcing this area. Both businesses also indicated
that they refused to park in lot #900 after dark because of safety
concerns. Staff directed them to discuss this problem with the Police
and /or Mike Tait.
Several other businesses had representatives at the Parking Committee
meeting. Staff has notified all businesses which utilize the lot of
this change and review by the City Council.
It has also come to the attention of staff that the Jaycees, Raspberry
Festival Association and HCP have recently moved their operations to
offices adjacent to this lot. This has had an impact on the operation
of these restrictions as occasionally, night meetings are held. This
creates a problem for other businesses and hampers the police efforts
to enforce the lot.
o What affects has this had on customer parking?
Staff did not receive any comments from the general public (customers)
about the change. Parking is still available for the majority of the
businesses who operate during the evening. However, the parking which
is available does require some competition on a first come, first
serve basis. The business owners invited to this meeting may have
more insight to how this change has impacted their business customers.
o Is this action similar to that in other lots?
Yes. Several lots within the central business district have been
designated for no parking from 10pm -5am or 2am -5am. These limits are
in place for similar reasons which the police have outlined for this
change.
The one difference to note is that in this lot a small area of
customer parking has been created. These spaces were initially
created to meet the needs of Taits Super Valu. Several other
businesses who operate past the lOpm restriction have made comment
about the lack of convenient parking for their operation. The changes
made by the Committee are an attempt to meet the needs of these
businesses and also the efforts of the Police.
o What comments did the Parking Committee have?
. The Committee expressed concerns about the impact on other businesses
open at the time the restrictions take affect. Discussion focused on
what designated area would be amicable for all businesses, not just
Taits.
•
•
CR: 91 -32
Page 4
The Police brought up the possibility of special permits for employees
and customers. The parking Committee did not respond favorably to
this issue. In fact employers currently have an area designated on
10th Avenue North for yellow permit parking. This area is specially
designated for employees who work late night and do not wish to walk
from lot #900.
Alternatives
Based on the above information, the City Council has the following
alternatives to consider:
1. Move that the restricted parking regulations in City Lot
#500, adopted on a 90 day trial basis by the City Council, be
made permanent at this time. The adoption of this motion
would implement the restrictions as they currently are
operating.
2. Move that the restricted parking regulations in City Lot
#500, adopted on a 90 day trial basis by the City Council, be
denied. This action would remove the restrictions as
designated and the lot would then return to free all night
parking.
3. Move to designate the 4th & 5th rows to the East of 11th
Avenue as Customer Parking Only. This would be adopted on a
90 day trial basis by the City Council. This action would
implement the changes discussed by the Parking Committee. It
would also require new signs be erected which reflect use of
the parking area by other businesses. It also requires lot
striping in the spring should this action be made permanent.
4. Continue the item for further information from staff.
verstory
lantings
•
king ..
•dostrJan .1
osswalk -1-)
•
LEGEND:
NV N o
WIC .
lry I fis
1/
ti
L
/„� At
1/„MI „,. ' ! s c
rstory T
� 'r ate & Gu
��• - '.
■
Pedestrian r
'Crosswalk r 1
•
Shrub & Ovorstory
Plantings
,1
1'
•
I t
Conc. Walk—
r
X ' = No Parking' lOpm - 5am •
= Customer parking only lOpm 5am - Proposed
+ = Employee parking
_ Customer parking - Currently -- - - -- - -
s e
.I
I (1 Pedestrian
1. Crosswak
I '
16' Pick -Up Lane
.�. - .,r-
£' '' •' t
!. /
111111u
iambi
MIKA
PA
AIM
Overstory Trees W/
Grate & Guards
'Pedestrian
6' Raised Concrete Island Crossing
ti t.. - , t
L6
•
� � 1Vw 11K
12' Curb Cut
• 8' Conc. Walk
I Fence W/ Ped.
Gate
.I
Pedestrian
Crosswak
+1.1.0k ad
••: On
• fain
Overstory Trees • W/ '
Grate & Guards
Overstory Trees
W/ Grate & Guard
it
12' Cur
Alternative le
Thls Sogmon
As Is With
Curbing And
T■ o, n.. .
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12 -3 -90
T0: Brian Fritsinger
FROM: Captain Liddy
SUBJECT: Restricted parking in City Lot 500
The Police Department recommends that the restricted parking regulations
in City Lot 500, adopted on a 90 -day trial basis by the City Council, be
made permanent at this time.
As you are aware, area businessmen and citizens had expressed numerous
concerns about the problems created by groups of young people parking
their vehicles and loitering about the area of Lot 500. The complaints
involved such things as intimidation and harassment of potential
customers, which has an adverse effect on customer traffic, excessive
noise levels, large amounts of litter left in the parking lot.
While enactment of the parking restrictions did not completely solve all
of the problems, we believe that there was a significant reduction in
these problems.
Adoption of the parking restrictions has had the following results, both
positive and negative:
1. The congregating of loiterers and large numbers of vehicles in this
area has been virtually eliminated after 10:00 p.m. While it would
have been advantageous to start the parking restrictions at an earlier
hour, this was considered impractical because of the number of
business considerations.
2 Reduction in litter. According to the superintendent of the street
department, there was a significant reduction in the amount of litter
which had to be cleaned, at City expense, in Lot 500.
3. Reduction in officer time necessary to police the area This has
resulted in more time available for officers to patrol other areas of
the City rather than concentrating so much of the time in the area
around Lot 500.
4. Citations given to business customers and apartment residents. A
number of Tait's customers did receive tickets after 10:00 p.m.
because they had parked in the restricted area. This problem was
anticipated before the restrictions went into effect, and those
citations were subsequently voided by the Police Department. Several
residents of the apartments located above Mainstreet businesses also
received tickets, This problem has been alleviated by issuing parking
permits to the affected residents.
•
•
Restricted parking in City Lot 500
12 -3 -90
Page 2
5. Relocation of "loiterers." As we expected, some of the individuals
who parked and /or loitered around Lot 500 were resourceful in finding
alternative sites to congregate. Some moved to Lot 700, and there
were also a few who began congregating in the park and ride lot at 8th
Avenue and County Road 3. The use of these areas by a limited number
of people has so far not been a problem. The numbers of people who
are congregating in these areas are not nearly as large as those who
frequented Lot 500 and the presence of individuals in these alternate
areas does not have the negative impact on area residents or
businesses that it did in Lot 500.
The three patrol sergeants who work during the evening hours were all
asked for their opinions on the Lot 500 issue. The unanimous response was
that the restricted parking in Lot 500 should be made permanent and that
the problems in the area have been reduced because of these restrictions.
It is unrealistic to think that any solution can be found which will
totally eliminate the problems associated with Lot 500. Several years ago
the City was faced with a tremendous "cruising" problem, and, because of
the sheer volume of traffic, police were forced to barricade the
Mainstreet of town every night of the week during the summer. We then
instituted the current pattern of one -way barricading, and that problem
was drastically reduced. We believe we will achieve similar results by
continuing the restricted parking in Lot 500.
Because the new restrictions in Lot 500 were instituted relatively late in
the summer, it is necessary to retain the current restrictions at least
through the next year. This will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness
of the restrictions over a whole summer to see if the results have been as
positive as we believe they have been so far.
As previously stated, there have been some problems associated with the
restricted parking. Most often these problems have been associated with
legitimate customers or apartment residents receiving citations. While we
do dismiss all of these types of citations, there is, of course, some
inconvenience to the citizen in getting the dismissal accomplished. In
comparing the positive results of the parking restrictions with the number
of citations which need to be dismissed and the inconvenience associated
with doing this, we believe that the benefits far outweigh the negative
aspects, and we recommend that the restrictions be continued.
JPL: jf
•
•
•
w
DATE: December 17, 1990
TO: Captain Liddy
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
FROM: Wynn Curtiss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
RE: Loitering Ordinance
In response to your request, I have investigated the law
regarding loitering /curfew /trespassing ordinances as they pertain
to the problem of dispersing persons from particular places within
the City. In a nutshell, a City may impose reasonable curfew and
trespass ordinances, but loitering ordinances are permissible only
if they prohibit loitering in the context of other illegal
activities. In other words, a loitering ordinance cannot be passed
which merely makes a person's presence at a place illegal, unless
that person is for some reason causing or suspected of causing
other illegal activity.
Most challenges to loitering ordinances result in the finding
that the ordinance is vague in its application and therefore,
unconstitutional. To pass this test, an ordinance prohibiting
loitering must prohibit loitering for specific other activities,
such as the solicitation of prostitution, sale of drugs or various
other criminal activities. Of course, in these cases, there is
separate illegal activity to charge and thus, the loitering
ordinance becomes less important. The most frequently upheld
loitering ordinance prohibits a person from occupying the public
sidewalks in a manner which restricts the free passageway of others
to use those sidewalks. Thus, if a group of ten is hanging around
on a street corner and their presence causes other potential users
of the sidewalk to refrain, the members of the group probably could
be charged under that type of loitering ordinance. Obviously, a
problem with this type of ordinance is that it is unlikely to be
applicable to a single person or to a very small group since their
defense would be that they are doing nothing to block the
passageway of the sidewalk. Simply alleging that their presence is
intimidating to others probably would not justify a charge under
this type of loitering ordinance.
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
•
•
With respect to curfew ordinances, the Hopkins Curfew
Ordinances as they are written appear adequate. While the language
of the ordinance is unclear with respect to 18 year olds, cases
have frowned upon restrictive curfews for persons 18 years of age
or older and thus, enforcement of the curfew should be limited to
persons 17 and younger. Naturally, this leaves a gap in coverage
for persons 18 years and up.
Two current statutes are available to address persons over the
age of 18: trespassing and disorderly conduct. The trespassing
statute cannot be applied in public places since quite obviously
each person has a right to occupy a public place unless they are
violating some other law. However, the trespassing statute can be
applied on private premises and strict enforcement of this rule can
be beneficial to individual business owners if it results in
persons avoiding their premises. The difficulty with this
provision is that both the City ordinance and State statute state
that persons are not guilty of trespassing until they refuse to
leave the premises of a person upon request to do so. Thus, if a
person entered Tait's and was asked to leave, they could not be
charged with trespass if they left. However, they could be asked
to leave and told not return and if they did return, an argument
could be made that they are then in violation of the trespass
ordinance. (Steiner and I disagree on this point; he believes you
could not prosecute them unless each time they appeared you request
that they leave and that they fail to do so. My position is that
if you ask them to leave and tell them to never come back and they
return, you can prosecute them at that time.) Strict enforcement
of this ordinance probably is one of the best tools for limiting
loitering, along with the curfew statute.
Finally, the disorderly conduct statute might be used in
situations in which persons who are congregating are acting in a
manner which tends to arouse fear, alarm or anger in a third
person. Thus, if a person or a group of persons standing on a
street corner are being loud, boiterous or profane, and this tends
to bother specific third parties, a claim of disorderly conduct
might be supported. Having read some police reports involving
situations following street dances, it is my feeling that the
disorderly conduct statute probably could be used on half of the
persons present.
A final consideration is creating recidivist provisions in the
City Ordinances pertaining to trespass or curfew violations. In
other words, create increasingly greater penalties for persons
convicted of multiple offenses of the same provision. This
language might be used well against some of the persons who tend to
congregate in the downtown area on a regular basis. On the penalty
aspect of these violations, I also would recommend the creation by
the City of a Hopkins community service program by which persons
convicted of these types of violations would be required to perform
community service on behalf of the City. Generally, judges are
reluctant to impose jail terms for these types of minor offenses
and monetary fines tend to minimal. Therefore, we need an
•
me.
• njj
additional penalty which benefits the City and at the same time
imposes some measure of retribution upon the defendants. Perhaps a
City- directed community service project in which persons convicted
of these types of offenses are required to do services on behalf of
the City would serve that end.
In conclusion, the present tools available such as the
trespassing, disorderly conduct and curfew statutes probably are
the best and only weapons available because of the Constitutional
guaranties of access to public places. Unless a person is a
juvenile or unless they are breaking some other rule, their mere
presence in a public place cannot be made a criminal offense. For
those reasons, an additional loitering ordinance probably is not
beneficial or necessary. Rather, strict enforcement of the
existing ordinances, particularly with respect to activity on
private property, probably is the strongest tool available. In
addition, a commitment to prosecute these matters to conviction and
obtain appropriate punishment, including some type of service on
behalf of the City, probably would deter repeat violations.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
WC
•
•
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 91 -13
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGES TO CBD PARKING SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins has adopted a parking permit
system for the Central Business Districts (CBD);
and
WHEREAS, a Parking Committee has been established to oversee
this system and recommend appropriate changes; and
WHEREAS, the Parking Committee has approved certain changes
to the parking system on January 21, 1991:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE MADE TO
THE CBD PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM:
o Increase permit fees by 6% rounded to the
nearest 1/2 dollar.
o Cut permit cost for Lot 900 by 50%.
ATTEST:
o Add 16 yellow permit spaces on 10th Avenue North
Adopted this 5th day of February, 1991.
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor