Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page | 1
City of BiddefordCity Council - Workshop
June 12, 2018 5:30 PM Council Chambers
1. Workshop Discussion Items 1.1. Staff Overview of Parking Management Plan
Draft Parking Management Plan-with maps.6.4.18.docx1.2. Merits of Parking Waivers
Merits of parking waivers.docx1.3. Biddeford Parking Management Program (Revised)
Biddeford Parking Management Program (PMP) bvf.eddy2.pptx
1
DraftParking Management Program
June 4, 2018
2
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1Parking Management Program ....................................................................................................... 2
Background................................................................................................................................. 2Staff Considerations.................................................................................................................... 2Parking Management Program (PMP) Recommendations......................................................... 3Parking Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 6
Appendix
Appendix 1 – List of Biddeford Parking Studies........................................................................ 7Appendix 2 – Current Policy ...................................................................................................... 9Appendix 3 – Community Input Summary............................................................................... 14Appendix 4 – Staff Supply and Demand Analysis ................................................................... 17Appendix 5 – Parking Enforcement Detail............................................................................... 27Appendix 6 – Reference Maps.................................................................................................. 30
List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Parking Changes .......................................................................................... 4Table A4-1: Existing Parking Supply...................................................................................... 18Table A4-2: Existing Parking Demand.................................................................................... 19Table A4-3: Mill District Deficit ............................................................................................. 20Table A4-4: Main Street Corridor Deficit ............................................................................... 21Table A4-5: Combined Parking Deficit................................................................................... 21Table A4-6: Point-in-Time Parking Survey............................................................................. 22Table A4-7: Overnight & Downtown Parking Assessment..................................................... 24Table A4-8: Vacant Space Analysis ........................................................................................ 25Table A4-9: Parking Enforcement History............................................................................... 26Table A5-1: Full-Time Parking Enforcement Salary .............................................................. 28Table A5-2: Part-Time Parking Enforcement Salary .............................................................. 29
List of Figures
Figure 1: Mill District Parking Demand Study Area................................................................. 2Figure A4-1: Mill District Parking Demand Projection .......................................................... 19Figure A4-2: Main Street Parking Demand Projection ........................................................... 20Figure A4-3: Mill District Deficit Projection .......................................................................... 20Figure A4-4: Main Street Corridor Deficit .............................................................................. 21Figure A4-5: Combined Parking Deficit ................................................................................. 21
3
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
1
Executive Summary
The Biddeford City Council’s (Council) authorization to move forward with design of the
municipality’s first parking structure in March of 2018 represented another step in the ongoing
process of addressing parking in Biddeford. Subsequent to the design authorization, the Council
directed staff to prepare a parking management program (PMP) to identify how future supply
and demand will be managed in the context of a possible future parking garage. The underlying
intent of the PMP is to create a system that manages the competing interests of stakeholders in a
fair, equitable, and fiscally responsible manner while fostering continued growth. This
document reflects the result of the work performed by staff and the recommended PMP.
The city currently has no formal parking management program; however, by policy all publicly
owned parking is free to the users and paid for by property taxpayers. This creates a situation
where some businesses and/or apartment owners get the financial support of the City while
others, who provide their own parking, do not. City policies should be fair and equitable in their
application. The current parking model does not meet this criterion. The well-documented
increase in parking demand, with continued growth projected, will only increase the impact of
the situation. Recommended policy changes are intended to address this policy inequity.
Solving the parking challenge is expected to have a direct and tangible impact on growth in
property tax valuation: the upside growth in taxable property in the parking study area is
significant. Conservative estimates for the full development of the remaining Mill space is
approximately $100 million in new value, not including 3 Lincoln Street. There are other
estimates that have demonstrated that three to four times that amount is obtainable. With limited
impacts on services, this growth will be critical in order to continue to stabilize property taxes
and meet future capital demands in the City.
This document represents the efforts of staff to prepare a PMP that: (1) Remains consistent with
the 2014 voter referendum prohibiting the use of parking meters; (2) provides on street short-
term parking at no cost to the customers; and, (3) creates a funding mechanism shifting the cost
of parking within the study area to users rather than taxpayers. The PMP is applicable to the
4
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
2
defined study area and is proposed to be implemented in three (3) phases over a period of 18
months, see Figure 1.
Phase I addresses parking within the Main Street corridor. This is the area along Main Street
from Elm to Water and adjacent feeder streets.
Figure 1: Mill District Parking Demand Study Area
The Main Street corridor will become short-term parking ranging from 30-min to a maximum of
2-hours. The establishment of time-limited parking will require enhanced enforcement. The
PMP includes recommendations for 1 full-time parking enforcement position or 2 part-time
seasonal parking enforcement positions ranging from $62,639.55 to $33,276.76, respectively.
5
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
3
Phase II, happening immediately after the short term parking changes of Phase 1 and the hiring
of enforcement staff, transitions eight (8) public surface parking1 lots to pay-per-use lots, for
both short and long term use. This phase also includes outreach to owners of private parking lots
in the study area to identify underutilized private parking space that could be used to meet
growing demand within the study area.
Finally, Phase III will be the opening of the parking garage, if approved. Occupancy within the
structure will be pay-per-use. The overall parking management program will be reviewed and
evaluated at that time to determine if improvements are necessary.
At each of these phases, staff will monitor assumptions and make recommendations as needed to
meet the goals of the city. Once the PMP concept is adopted, staff will begin the process of
preparing the policy documents and orders necessary for implementation.
1 This does not include the present leased parking lot on 3 Lincoln Street as part of the Saco Falls tax increment financing district agreement. This lot is part of the Parking Garage footprint, and will be replaced by garage spaces.
6
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
1
Introduction
Like many communities at one or more points in their history, the City of Biddeford is
experiencing a period of growth. The term “Biddaissance” has been used and properly indicates
the significance of Biddeford’s growth compared to other communities in the area and within
Maine. Growth is generally welcomed because it signals confidence in the economy and the
community and increases tax revenue, which are all good things. However, growth also brings
challenges; one of the challenges being parking, especially for long established communities that
do not have the luxury or financial ability to completely redesign local infrastructure.
Communities like Biddeford that face parking pressures, have an opportunity to recognize the
issue and proactively manage parking in order to mitigate the often conflicting interests of
stakeholders. The stakeholders include visitors to the community, business owners, employees,
residents (local taxpayers) and the municipality. In many instances, the interests of individual
stakeholders change rapidly making an already complicated issue even more difficult. For
example, a business owner needs parking for customers and employees creating a supply and
demand conflict. Customers want convenient parking near their destination which impacts
available employee parking. Employees that work for a business that does not provide employee
parking want convenient parking near their place of work potentially reducing availability of
customer parking for local businesses while at the same time an employee may leave for lunch
and expect parking at a restaurant similar to visitors or citizens. The City of Biddeford is
responsible for maintenance of the public parking inventory and by extension local taxpayers pay
for such maintenance. Residents may object to local businesses benefiting from available public
parking but established multi-use buildings may have no options for private parking.
This is not a new issue for Biddeford but it is becoming more and more of a concern. Biddeford
started talking about parking many years ago. Talks began to gain formal status in 2006 with
publication of the Downtown Biddeford Parking and Traffic Study by Gorrill Palmer. Since then
there have been six additional reports all dealing with the subject of parking, see Appendix 1 –
List of Biddeford Parking Studies.
7
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
2
The studies collectively indicate that parking will continue to be an issue and that same
sentiment is being reinforced by what staff and others are hearing from new businesses and
entrepreneurs exploring Biddeford – a lack of adequate parking is a serious hindrance to present
and future development efforts, both in the Mill District and in the Main Street corridor.
As part of the ongoing dialogue, the Biddeford City Council (Council) authorized design of the
municipality’s first parking structure and directed staff to prepare a parking management
program (PMP) to identify how future supply and demand will be managed. The underlying
intent of the PMP is to create a system that manages the competing interests of stakeholders in a
fair, equitable, and fiscally responsible manner while fostering continued growth. This
document reflects the result of the work performed by staff and the recommended PMP.
Parking Management Program
Background
In developing the PMP, staff evaluated current policy (Appendix 2), considered input from
business and the public through three listening sessions as well as an online comment option
(Appendix 3), and performed a supply and demand analysis (Appendix 4). All of the
information considered by staff is attached to this document in the referenced appendices.
Staff Considerations
In general, the PMP should address immediate parking needs, long-term parking needs, and
include a financial plan. Based on the comprehensive review performed by staff, nine (9)
considerations were identified to serve as the framework for the PMP.
1. A PMP is a dynamic program and should be considered a fluid process,
addressing the current environment but should be flexible enough to respond to
changes in business occupancy, area activity, stakeholder needs/priorities, and
municipal goals.
2. Break the target area into reasonable sectors and understand localized supply and
demand issues through the supply and demand analysis.
8
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
3
3. Manage parking turnover, through time limited parking zones (signage or
ordinance) to keeping spaces from being used for extended periods. On-street and
lot durations vary according to the time demand at each location.
4. Promote economic development through the management of public parking
spaces.
5. Be aware of possible spill over from street parking into traditional neighborhoods
as the PMP is implemented and be prepared to respond.
6. Understand expanding market forces at peak periods in order to balance parking
supply with competing parking demand interests.
7. Change the current taxpayer funded “free” public parking model to a user-funded
model.
8. Demand for short-term parking will grow when filling vacancies in the study area.
Nearby solutions need to be developed to address displaced current long-term
parking; failure to consider displaced spaces will restrict the quality and pace of
filling storefront vacancies on Main Street.
9. Determine what parking wayfinding should look like and where the wayfinding
should be placed.
The following section will identify the sequence of need, sub-components that will be necessary
to support the parking management system, and an outline of the phased parking management
system, with supporting maps and tables. The maps are key to understanding the
recommendations. They provide a visual reference for the City Council, residents, commuters,
and business owners. These reflect changes in time-limited parking on the street, in surface lots,
that will need to be codified with the acceptance of this plan.
Parking Management Program Recommendations
Staff recommends the PMP be implemented in three phases over a period of 18 months. Maps
are included in Appendix 6 as Phase I, Phase II and Phase III for the reference areas.
Phase I: Phase I targets the Main Street corridor. The focus is to convert existing long-
term parking to short-term parking (30-minutes - 2 hour parking) on the street and
9
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
4
in public surface lots, based on location, see Appendix 6 – Phase I Map and Table
1 below:
Table 1: Proposed Parking Changes
Location Existing Conditions Proposed Change
Street Street Area of Change to 2-hr Parking
Lincoln St. Unlimited Main St. to Pearl St.
Jefferson St. Unlimited Main St. to South St.
Center St. Unlimited Jefferson St. to 42 Center St.
South St. Unlimited Adams St. to Jefferson St.
Adams St. Unlimited Main St. to Jefferson St.
Bacon St. Unlimited Alfred St. to Foss St.
Emery St. Unlimited Main St. to Bacon St.
Hill St. Unlimited Main St. to Bacon St.
Street/Lot Street/Lot Area of Change to 30 Minute Parking
Main St. 2 Hour At City Hall
Jefferson St 1 Hour Adjacent to 265 Main St.
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 spaces on the corner of Franklin &
Federal Streets
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 Spaces at 42 Franklin St
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 spaces at 69 Jefferson St.
Street/Lot Street/Lot Remaining 1-hour Parking
Adams St. 1 Hour 9 spaces adjacent to City Hall
City Hall 1 Hour 4 spaces at rear entrance
Spaces will be identified as spaces between 30 minutes and 2 hour parking based on nearby business needs and demand. There will be no 4 hour parking available.
Current long-term on-street users, where existing spaces will be converted to short term parking, will be encouraged to move to the Washington Street parking lot, the Franklin Street lot, Water Street lots, or to the private credit union lot.
Increase the rate of enforcement to insure compliance with time restrictions so that parking turnover frees up supply for customers.
The increased enforcement will require additional staffing intended to be covered in part by new ticket revenue.
Evaluate program effectiveness and address any deficiencies.
10
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
5
Phase II: Phase II transitions the eight (8) current public lots, immediately after the changes
are implemented for phase 1, from free parking to pay-per-use, see Appendix 6 –
Phase II Map.
The municipal surface parking lots will be converted from no time limit or restricted time limit free parking to paid parking in the daytime only. The public lots will therefore consist of the existing short term spaces (2 hours, i.e. the Police station lot), all day parking, and, with a kiosk, the ability to manage longer stays of 2-hours or greater.
Establishment of parking fees will be based on and tied to the pro forma created in conjunction with the parking garage financial model.
Phasing in of surface lot parking costs will occur immediately after the new short term spaces are established and the enforcement staff and kiosk equipment is purchased. The fees for those costs will be phased in over 18 months, starting with a base upon implementation, then increasing to half in phase 2, and then to a full payment with the opening of the Parking Garage.
Private lot owners will be encouraged to rent excess spaces to meet additional short-term parking needs.
Improvements, like signing and lighting, will be implemented and paid for by new paid parking lot parking spaces, as projected. Other capital improvements will be identified, planned for, and slotted for implementation.
Evaluate effectiveness and address any deficiencies.
Phase III: Phase III will coincide with the opening of the proposed parking structure.
Occupancy in the parking structure will be pay-per-use, see Appendix 6 – Phase
III Map.
Evaluate speed at which the proposed garage fills and formulate program amendments as needed.
Test market assumptions and adjust cost of parking and type (daytime, nighttime, and 24/7 spaces) as needed. Kiosks will permit quick technical changes as the need arises.
Evaluate Supply and Demand assessment, identify deficits by location and need and formulate program amendments.
11
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
6
Reevaluate remaining parking structure sites and study parking trends for potential development of new parking supply, i.e. pre-planning for a potential second parking structure.
Parking Enforcement
In order for the PMP to be successful there will need to be effective and consistent parking
enforcement. Currently downtown parking enforcement during the summer months limits
parking enforcement at the beaches and vice versa. In order to overcome this issue two
proposals are offered: (1) add one additional full-time traffic enforcement position at an initial
cost of $62,639.55, or (2) add two part-time seasonal traffic enforcement positions (without
benefits) during the summer months at a cost of $33,276.76. Proposal specifics are included in
Appendix 5 – Parking Enforcement Detail. The projected position costs will change if there is
interest in implementing traffic enforcement on holidays.
Finally, along with the enforcement officers in phase 2, the purchase and installation of kiosks
will occur. This will permit consistent and efficient monitoring of the use of parking spaces in
surface lots, evaluating where pressure for new or different kinds of supply is needed, and allow
us to adjust quickly when there are adjacent changes in land use/parking demand.
12
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
7
Appendix 1
List of Biddeford Parking Studies
13
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
8
History of Major Biddeford Parking Studies.
Several reports over more than ten years have warned of existing and growing parking issues, as
Main Street and the Mill District recover and reuse existing space. These reports include:
Presentation of Parking Structure: Strategy to Keep Residents from Paying Costs -COB - November 2016
Biddeford Public Parking: An Analysis of the Real Costs of Free Parking and Implications on Downtown Design - COB - May 2016
Architect’s Presentation to City Council Mill District Feasibility Study - Winton Scott / Rich Associates - December 2012
Consultants’ Presentation Mill District Parking Feasibility Study - Winston Scott / Rich Assoc. / Gorrill Palmer - December 2012
Final Report: Downtown Parking Study - Rich Associates - October 2012
Excerpt from Mill District Master Plan - 2009
Final Report Downtown Biddeford Parking and Traffic Study - Gorrill-Palmer -November 2006
All reports and additional information of the issue of parking are available at
www.biddefordmaine.org/parking.
14
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
9
Appendix 2
Current Policy
15
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
10
Current Parking Policy
As expressed in annual budget documents, by referendum, and through City ordinance
provisions, the city’s parking policy is seen through three focal points:
Public investment in parking spaces. The city over the years has made decisions to create parking lots to be used for free parking in the downtown. A review of those lots show that there are 419 spaces in 11 different lots in the downtown and mill district. Most of the lots were created with various forms of federal dollars as part of urban renewal, with the intent of eliminating unsightly buildings (and people and businesses) and create new parking to compete with growing mall activity in South Portland and the development of Biddeford Crossing in the mid-2000s.
Time limited street parking with minimum enforcement. The city adopted minimal short-term time limited parking along the streets and surface lots. To insureavailability, parking enforcement was required, but generally limited to work periods, Monday through Friday.
No parking meters in downtown. In 2014, a citizen petition banned the use of parking meters in the downtown. Unless that question is revisited by the voters, it remains a cornerstone of all future parking policy discussions.
Policy Implications
Current policy could change, if the following assumptions are believed to be true:
Available and predictable parking is important to the customers of businesses. Ascompetition for parking increases with redevelopment, customers will have less convenient parking choices. As such they may not come into the parking study area and storefront vacancies may not be filled. Without customers, businesses are without revenues. Business will neither survive nor come to the Main Street corridor. Therefore, a priority should be providing adequate short-term turnover parking in the downtown with supportive enforcement strategies.
Long-term parking should be safe and convenient, but not be at the expense of short-term parking. The users of long-term parking are generally daytime employees or residential tenants at night. Any long term parking in areas where customers park or expect to park restricts customer opportunity, limits business revenue, and ultimately results in failed businesses and vacancies.
Tenant and employee parking is not the prime responsibility of the City. Most apartment owners and businesses are expected to provide parking. Those that do not, should not expect parking to be paid for by the taxpayers. Most of the all-day parking spots in surface lots and on streets are used by employees and tenants. As parking demand increases, competition increases and all day or night parkers dominate those
16
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
11
spaces. The trend of increasing numbers of these users will continue to restrict supply. That competition adversely impacts customers seeking parking to do business in the study area.
The use of direct property taxes to create new off street parking in the study area is not politically viable. Without other state and federal resources, the ability to create new off street parking is limited to resources within the control of city officials. One option is the use of general fund revenues for construction. This option has been clearly identified by the City Council and the public as not acceptable.
Creation of current off street parking has been primarily achieved without funding from local property taxes. Most off street parking (lots) was created by federal funding back in an era of more plentiful federal/state grants. Those resources are now far and few between. To create new off street parking for downtown, some sort of local funding tied to user fees or new TIF revenues will be needed. Parking will no longer come from the general fund.
Equitable and consistent application of policy. Currently, there is no formal parking policy; however, all publicly owned parking is free to the users and paid for by property taxpayers. This creates a situation where some businesses and/or apartment owners get the financial support of the City while others, who provide their own parking, do not. The well-documented increase in parking demand, with continued growth projected, is expected to continue this trend. Changes in policy will require passing the straight face test regarding equitable treatment of all stakeholders.
Solving the parking challenge has a direct and tangible impact on growth in property tax valuation. The opportunity for upside growth in taxable property in the study areais significant. Conservative estimates for the full development of the remaining Mill space is approximately $100 million in new value. There are other estimates that have demonstrated that three to four times that is obtainable. With limited impacts on services, this growth will be critical in order to continue to stabilize property taxes and meet future capital demands in the City.
Policies should reflect goals
Short term on-street parking is intended for customers. The principle goal of on-street parking is to provide predictable parking for visitors customers. Given the analysis of current needs, some short term parking might also be needed in off street locations.
Short-term time limits should be responsive. The ability to shift short term time limits should be responsive to business ownership or services changes. Currently, it may take between three to four months to make such changes. In an area of the citythat is evolving, that is unacceptable. A nimbler system must be created to be responsive to changes. For short term parking, the limits shall be from 30 minutes up to two hours, depending on the nature of the nearby local businesses.
17
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
12
Consistency with voter referendum. All on street short-term parking will remain at no cost to the customers. Any change to this policy would require a public vote of the citizens.
Long-term parking will be paid for by the users. The city would continue to invest in parking for the study area. However, instead of parking being paid for by taxpayers, a new parking structure would be built and constructed based on a predictable revenue stream that would not include general fund property taxes. Sources would include user fees and increased revenue captured within the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) program.
Residential streets might need protection. Regardless of whether new off street parking is created or not, increased pressures are being placed on streets traditionally residential in nature. More of the employee parking is spilling into residential areasespecially during business hours on weekdays. The City should be prepared to address the issue as neighborhoods voice specific concerns.
18
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
13
Appendix 3
Community Input Summary
19
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
14
Community Input Summary
Key Community Issues.
The Council, in conjunction with staff efforts, created several avenues to communicate concerns
related to the parking management program. The intent being to obtain an understanding of
issues and perspectives from a cross section of the community in order to formulate a responsive
and effective PMP.
Understanding business sentiment. A survey of the business community, as well as the listening
sessions2, suggest the following:
1. Customers want free short-term parking. Customers are the revenue source for
businesses. The ease of finding short-term, free parking is critical to the success
of Main Street. Eighty-eight percent of businesses surveyed (26 surveys) wanted
short term parking with 50% of those wanting at least 2 hours. Based on the 26
surveys, Main Street, and its side streets, were identified as where those
customers park.
2. Time Limits on the street need to be tied to business uses. Short-term parking
should range from 30 minutes to two hours, depending on the nearby business
need.
3. Employees would like a secure parking space, at no cost or the least cost possible.
Employees represent the largest segment of long term parking demand (followed
by residents, albeit at different demand times). In our survey, 54% were parking
in private lots, while the remainder (46%) were using public street or on surface
lot spaces. Employee parking, if not free, is likely to be either passed on to the
employee or an expense businesses must absorb.
4. Employees are competing for short-term spaces. 20% of businesses surveyed
identified the practice of the “parking shuffle”3 as influencing availability of
2 The survey was conducted by the Heart of Biddeford and included 26 responses. The listening sessions were held on three separate dates in April 2018.3 The term “parking shuffle” refers to the practice of individuals parking in a time limited spot and moving the vehicle to another location just before the time expires, often just feet away, in order to avoid a ticket.
20
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
15
customer parking. The parking shuffle along with dwindling parking supply,
creates an increase in parking competition wherein the business’ employees
compete with the business’s customers for available parking spaces.
5. Most business owners agree, more parking is necessary. 65% of businesses
responding wanted more parking, while 54% said there was not enough parking
for employees and customers. This condition exists despite the fact that there are
9 vacant storefronts on Main Street (April, 2018)
Understanding citizen sentiment. Staff began with this known fact: the community
overwhelmingly voted to prohibit “having parking meters in the Downtown”. Any solution to
the parking issue must embrace this base sentiment. Others include:
1. Tax implications of free parking. “Free” parking places the cost burden of on-
street and municipal lot parking squarely on the city taxpayer, whether he or she
uses municipal parking or not.
2. Citizens have come to expect “free” parking. Decades ago, according to records
and news media, meters were removed from downtown as a way to better entice
residents to the Main Street corridor and fill storefront vacancies. This pattern was
repeated in many communities in the country.
3. Biddeford will never change. There is some sentiment that Biddeford cannot
change, so why invest in a parking garage or create a parking management plan at
all.
Notes from the parking management plan listening sessions and other citizen input are available
upon request.
21
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
16
Appendix 4
Staff Supply and Demand Analysis
22
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
17
Staff Supply and Demand Analysis
To choose an appropriate parking management program, Council asked staff to expand upon
earlier parking projections by updating the Rich Associates base information and provide an
updated demand assessment based on present building use. For the parking study area, staff
collected:
Supply and demand data by block group that included the Mill and Main Street Districts, utilizing GIS mapping/data collection capacity
Mill District space by square foot, both vacant and used
Main Street space by square foot, by vacant and used, as well as housing structures listed by the number of units they housed
Off street parking supply by:
• Public surface lots
• Public and private handicap spaces
• Private surface lots
On street parking supply by:
• 30 minute spaces
• 2 hour spaces
• Unlimited-time parking
These components were then mapped, see Appendix 6 – Biddeford Downtown Parking Supply
Map.
From the inventory, staff proceeded to identify supply, demand, and deficits in three areas:
Supply and Demand by Existing, occupied space
Supply and Demand by all existing space, fully built out, without 3 Lincoln Street
Supply and Demand by all existing spaces at full build out including 3 Lincoln Street
23
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
18
Supply
The supply of parking in the study area (including the Mill District) comprises both public and
private surface lots as well as on-street spaces. Supply figures shown here are based on data
calculated from GIS mapping of the area. The Mill District and Main Street area are considered
both separately and in total, to highlight growth areas that will create additional demand and
place new pressure on existing supply. Based on this data, the supply of existing parking is as
follows:
Table A4 – 1: Existing Parking Supply
Type Mill District Main Street Area
Combined Area
Municipal Surface Lots 16 403 419Private Surface Lots 696 1,009 1,705On-Street Spaces (all types) 43 722 765Total 755 2,134 2,889
Private surface lots provide the majority of parking spaces in the study area, and as expected, the
Main Street Area contains more spaces, both on-street and surface lots, than the Mill District.
While not shown here, calculation of supply and demand figures were facilitated by breaking the
study area into block groups.
Demand
Parking demand is constantly changing, based on nearby building uses (i.e. commercial or
residential uses) and time of day. Point-in-time demand can be aggregated by applying broad
calculations that consider the type of parking demand (land use) in a given area:
Example: Mixed-use Demand Criterion = 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area
These calculations have been applied to three downtown development scenarios: 1) demand
based on existing structures, adjusted for vacancies, in the study area, 2) demand based on
projected full occupancy, both commercial and residential, and 3) demand created by full
development at the 3 Lincoln Street site. Demand (shown as number of parking spaces needed)
24
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
19
calculated under these three scenarios demonstrate that demand is projected to increase with
further development, as shown in Table A4-2.
Table A4-2: Existing Parking Demand
Existing Demand Projected Demand 3 Lincoln StMixed-use Demand
Residential Demand
Total Demand
Mixed-use Demand
Residential Demand
Total Demand
Mixed-use Demand
Total Demand
Mill District
1,315 282 1,597 232 347 579 939 939
Main St. Area
1,750 853 2,603 325 18 343 ― ―
Seen graphically, demand in the Mill District will grow by 36% from current levels to projected
build-out of existing space and by an additional 43% with full development of the 3 Lincoln
Street site, see Figure A4-1.
Figure A4-1: Mill District Parking Demand Projection
Demand in the Main Street area will likewise grow as full build-out takes place. Parking
demand is projected to increase by 13.2% in the Main Street area, see Figure A4-2.
1,5972,176
3,115
0500
1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500
Existing TotalDemand
Projected TotalDemand - Full Build-
out
Projected Demand -3 Lincoln St Mixed
Use
Mill District
25
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
20
Figure A4-2: Main Street Parking Demand Projection
Supply vs. Demand
Mill District. At existing levels, supply of parking in the Mill District is not great enough to
satisfy existing demand for mixed-use and residential parking. Presently, there is a deficit of 842
spaces. This deficit is expected to increase to 1,421 spaces when all currently vacant Mill
building space is fully built out and occupied. Full build-out represents a 69% increase in the
deficit of parking. Once the 3 Lincoln Street site is fully developed, the deficit will soar by
180% over the existing deficit, see Figure A4-3 and Table A4-3.
Figure A4-3: Mill District Deficit Projection Table A4-3: Mill District Deficit
Mill DistrictCurrent Demand
Full Build-Out Demand
Full Build-Out w/ 3 Lincoln St
Supply 755 755 755Demand 1,597 2176 3,115Deficit 842 1,421 2,360
Main Street Area. Demand in the Main Street area is expected to increase significantly as vacant
storefronts and upper story commercial space fills. At existing levels of supply and demand,
however, there is a deficit of 469 parking spaces. With full build-out of vacant space, this deficit
will likely increase by 73% to 812 spaces, see Figure A4-4 and Table A4-4.
26032946
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Existing Total Demand Projected Total Demand - FullBuild-out
Main Street Area
26
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
21
Figure A4-4: Main Street Corridor Deficit Table A4-4: Main Street Corridor Deficit
Mill District and Main Street Area Combined.
Looking at the Mill District and Main Street area
as one cohesive unit, the parking deficit becomes a significant problem for the City and takes on
considerable urgency. At existing levels of development, there is a deficit of 1,311 spaces. This
is particularly evident in the Mill District, but as full build-out takes place and the 3 Lincoln
Street site is developed, the deficit will increase dramatically by 142% over existing levels or
3,172 spaces, see Figure A-4-5 and Table A4-5.
As a practical example, mill owners presently select their tenants in ways that they can maximize
use of the space by combining daytime and evening users; at other times, they simply note that
they will not provide parking with the rental space. This is a significant detraction to continued
infill and jobs creation.
Figure A4-5: Combined Parking Deficit Table A4-5: Combined Parking Deficit
Observations. Staff made an effort to field check
activities to get an intuitive sense of what was actually occurring on the streets and surface lots in
the community, given the findings above and comments received from the public. Staff wanted
Main Street AreaCurrent Demand
Full Build-Out Demand
Full Build-Out w/ 3 Lincoln St
Supply 2,134 2,134 --Demand 2,603 2,949 --Deficit 842 812 --
Mill District and Main St.Current Demand
Full Build-Out Demand
Full Build-Out w/ 3 Lincoln St
Supply 2,889 2,889 2,889Demand 4,200 5,122 6,061Deficit 1,311 2,233 3,172
27
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
22
to develop a sense of what would happen, right now, if Main Street alone were at full capacity,
as well as what was going on during the day and evening. Staff performed assessments through
four (4) different methods:
1) Walking survey of city owned parking lots, Table A4-6;
2) Overnight parking-resident assessment, Table A4-7;
3) Review of Main Street vacant properties, Table A4-8;
4) Enforcement trends, Table A4-9.
Walking Survey. The purpose of the walking survey was to capture, beyond people’s
perceptions, what was actually happening in the municipality short- and long-term surface lots.
This is a non-exhaustive point in time survey over three days to get a sense of how the surface
lots are actually performing:
Table A4-6: Point-in-Time Parking Survey
Date and Time:4/19/2018-8:30 AM
4/18/2018-10:00 AM
4/18/2018-2:00PM
4/17/2008-4:00PM
Location Capacity
% of Capacity
Observed
% of Capacity
Observed
% of Capacity
Observed
% of Capacity
ObservedCity Hall 36 90% 100% 80% 100%South Street 20 100% 100% 100% 0%Adams Street 22 90% 100% 100% 0%Washington St/Bangor spaces 12 50% 50% 50% 0%Washington St/Court spaces 12 30% 20% 60% 0%Washington St North (west side) 23 30% 80% 70% 100%Washington St North (east side) 37 40% 60% 60% 50%Washington St Park 32 70% ― 10% 30%Franklin St West 39 100% 100% 100% 100%Franklin St East 25 30% 30% 60% 100%Alfred St/Police Station - 2hr 42 80% 90% 100% 50%Alfred St/Police Station - 4hr 20 90% 100% 100% 60%Foss St 43 100% 100% 100% 60%Water St (Gas House) 23 30% 40% 30% 0%Water St. (Waste Water) 22 20% 15% 20% 0%
Point in Time 3 Day Parking Survey Survey
28
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
23
The findings show:
Most of our unlimited parking areas (surface and street) tend to be full during the business day, with the exception of the Washington St. Parking Lot. This lot is partially full in the morning, suggesting use by local residents, but is empty the rest of the time.
The 2 and 4 hour parking behind the police station is heavily used; however, the goal of the four hour parking is unclear. The two hour parking in the George’s Sandwich Shop area (Franklin East) is at about 30% occupancy until late afternoon, probably fueled by the restaurants; this is likely true for the lunch hour, although that period was not observed. Incidentally, the private parking offered by Northeast Credit Union, at Foss and Pool, is underutilized and offers some short term parking options.
The Federal Street lots have signs posted for both the Courthouse and Bangor Savings Bank (as approved in the charter). The spaces are not generally used. The rest of the lot is sometimes lightly populated, although the lot behind the Palace Diner is full. That observation is made in the absence of a tenant in the old Post Office at Washington and Federal Streets.
Some of the unlimited time spaces could be changed to short term to meet the pending demand on Main Street. That will further increase the need for long-termparking beyond the present supply (i.e. need for a parking garage).
Overnight parking in unlimited spaces in the Main Street Corridor. During the parking review
process, the need for overnight parking by residents was identified. The Police Department
conducted a point-in-time license plate survey of surface lots to provide a sense of who uses
overnight parking:
29
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
24
Table A4-7: Overnight & Main St Corridor Parking Assessment
Of the surface lots surveyed; 53-62% of the spaces were occupied by vehicles registered in
Biddeford. The rest were out of town registrations. 10-12% were out of state and so likely UNE
students. There would appear to be an ample supply of public parking (in the absence of private
lots) to meet residential needs in the study area, in the evening at this time; competing evening
activities to increase pressure and create parking conflicts.
For the neighborhoods surrounding the Main Street corridor and Mill Districts, the supply of
parking, including driveways and street parking, is adequate to handle those parking needs. It
would also suggest some availability for daytime parking spillover if the City began managing
time limits by time of day use.
Main Street Vacancies. One common refrain from potential new commercial tenants wanting to
locate on Main Street (along with the cost of rent) is “where is the parking?” Their question
relates to both customers and employees. A parking needs assessment of vacant properties is
found in Table A4-8. This projection must be considered when evaluating overall parking needs.
Date: 4/18/2018 4/19/2018 4/20/2018Streets:Franklin Street 28 31 27Washington St. 16 17 16Federal Street 19 25 17Foss Street 14 14 14Main Street 12 9 13Total 89 96 87Where Registered:Biddeford Registered 50 59 46Other City 30 25 30Other State 9 12 11
Overnight use of Downtown Parking
30
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
25
Table A4-8: Vacant Space Analysis
What this assessment indicates, using standards taken from the Biddeford Zoning Ordinance, is
that there is the potential demand for 168 spaces based on existing vacant storefront square
footage. One hundred forty-four (144) spaces are of the short term demand variety (2 hours or
less), while 24 are all day spaces associated with employees. This demand will exceed supply if
there is no plan to create more immediate 2 hour spaces around Main Street.
One solution, by way of example, is to create roughly 53 short-term (customer) spaces by
eliminating unlimited parking on Adams (between Main and Jefferson), Jefferson (between
South and Main), and South (between Jefferson and Adams) to meet some need, placing those
current on-street users in unlimited time spaces at Washington Street parking lot and in
underutilized Courthouse designated spaces. To meet the remaining short-term need, the City
could consider converting other city owned surface parking space (City Hall, Federal Street, Foss
Street; 2 out of 3 would meet that need) to short-term use, while finding long-term use solutions
for current users.
Main Street Address square feet total spaces customer employees193 4,000 13.33 11 2165 2,000 6.67 6 1162 2,000 6.67 6 1148 14,000 46.67 40 7145 3,100 10.33 8 2
Marble Block 12,000 40.00 34 6117 5,650 18.83 17 2227 5,200 17.33 15 2285 2,500 8.33 7 1
Total: 50,450 168 144 24 1 space per 300 s.f. for retail/service
1 employee per 2,000s.f.
Impact on Parking: Filling Vacant Main Street Spaces
31
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
26
Enforcement Trends. Enforcement trends provide a sense of where the greatest parking need
may be simply by evaluating the number of tickets issued by location. The Police Department
provided the following information:
Table A4-9: Parking Enforcement History
Enforcement trends suggest that there are some hot spots during the day:
Generally, tickets appear to be increasing, although 2016 was lower than the previous year.
Overtime parking issues are increasing
People are parking in permit area only spaces, especially around City Hall
The enforcement trend is expected to continue irrespective of a new parking management
program since indications are that parking will grow increasingly scarce. The enforcement
strategy may need to be adjusted to address this issue if additional enforcement personnel are not
included in the PMP. Appendix 5 – Parking Enforcement Detail, addresses options for
increasing parking enforcement.
32
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
27
Appendix 5
Parking Enforcement Detail
33
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
28
PARKING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FY/2019
Existing parking enforcement is sporadic during the summer months due to the requirement to
enforce parking restrictions along the beaches. In the absence of the parking enforcement
employee in the study area, parking violations are unenforced. This absence is especially notable
during the period from June 15th to the day after Labor Day, when beach parking permit
enforcement is required at certain beaches, since the current enforcement officer cannot be in
two places at once.
With the proposed changes to time limited parking, there needs to be consistent and on-going
monitoring and enforcement of vehicles that are parked within certain permit/timed zones. This
will require expanding hours and days of coverage to insure compliance. Staff proposes two
options, see Tables A5-1 and A5-2.
Option 1 is to hire an additional full-time traffic enforcement employee.
Option 2 is to hire two part-time seasonal parking enforcement positions for additional
coverage from June through Labor Day.
The following tables identify the cost associated with each option.
Table A5-1: Full-Time Parking Enforcement Salary
Description Rate Unit Subtotal
Wages 19.11$ 2,080 39,748.80$
FICA 2,464.43$ 1 2,464.43$
Medicare 576.36$ 1 576.36$
MePERS 3,815.88$ 1 3,815.88$
Health Ins 15,254.08$ 1 15,254.08$
RHS 780.00$ 1 780.00$
Annual Wages and Benefits162,639.55$
1 Current Benefits: Four (4) weeks vacation & 5 floating holidays.
This equates to 5 weeks or 47 available work
weeks.
34
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
29
Table A5-2: Part-Time Parking Enforcement Salary
Description Rate Unit Subtotal
Wages 14.00$ 1,104 15,456.00$
FICA 958.27$ 1 958.27$
Medicare 224.11$ 1 224.11$
MePERS -$ 1 -$
Health Ins -$ 1 -$
RHS -$ 1 -$
16,638.38$
x 2
Annual Wages and Benefits133,276.76$
1 These are non-union positions pursuant to 26 MRSA 962(6G)
seasonal employees with no benefits.
35
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
30
Appendix 6
Reference Maps
36
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
31
Appendix 6 – Reference Maps
37
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
32
38
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
33
39
CITY OF BIDDEFORDECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Biddeford City CouncilFrom: Mathew Eddy
Greg TansleyDate: June 8, 2018
Discussion Paper: The Merits of Parking Waivers
The City council has asked that we review the merits and reasons for granting parking space waivers in the downtown. We will do so, dividing the discussion into the following sections:
I. Comprehensive plan guidance;II. Ordinance guidance;
III. Specific ordinance reference, example;IV. Practices around the Country/Region; and,V. Potential impacts of a moratorium on parking waivers.
I. Comprehensive plan guidance. The Comprehensive Plan Committee addressed this issue in 1999:
Under the Downtown development goal:
Policy 2: To establish a Main Street Restoration District (MSRD) as a separate zoning district to facilitate meeting the specific requirements of the Downtown area…
Implementation Strategy 2a2. Zone…specific site review criteria that allow flexibility in terms of parking, landscaping, and land uses which are compatible with historic, cultural, and commercial aspects of the Downtown.
Other strategies and policies included implementing a parking management plan, better wayfinding, and increasing parking supplies.
The Comprehensive Plan of 1999 specifically tasked the City Council, Policy Committee, and the Planning Board with developing the Ordinance that exists today regarding the MSRD districts and the approach to allow for waivers for parking requirements in the Downtown area. It is this policy the community has been following for almost twenty years and its’ importance to the
Mathew EddyDirector, Planning and Development
205 Main StreetBiddeford, ME 04005
40
development community has recently increased with renewed investment interest in the downtown, post-MERC.
II. Ordinance Guidance. The MSRD Zones (1,2, 3) were established following the plan and amended in 2009 and 2013. The enabling language speaks to the following goal for Main Street:
MSRD-1: The commercial core district where the intent is to preserve the historic character of Biddeford while promoting the growth of businesses and residences in the district.
III. Specific ordinance reference, example. The parking waiver flexibility appears in Section 49 of the Performance Standards of the Land Use Ordinance and appears to have been adopted after the Comprehensive Plan and amended further in 2009. The pertinent requirements related to the parking waiver are as follows, including the guidance that was given related to the most recent waiver approval, 5 Washington Street:
A.11. Main Street Revitalization Districts and W-2 Zone parking requirements—General. (None of A1-A10 of this section applies to MSRD Zones or the W-2 Zone, and any requirement under Article VI (Performance Standards), Section 49 (Off-street parking and loading) may be waived by the Planning Board upon request of an applicant. The applicant must demonstrate that the waiver request is necessary due to existing conditions and would serve a useful purpose.)
(1) The Planning Board may reduce the off-street requirements of proposals in the MSRD Zones and the W-2 Zone:
c. Where it is clearly demonstrated that the parking demand will be lower than that established by this section and that the reduction will not detract from neighborhood property values, inconvenience the public, or increase congestion on adjacent streets. TANSLEY - Generally we are finding that overall parking requirements for mixed use projects in the Downtown are about 2/3 of the sum of the requirements as provided in the Ordinance.
d. For the reuse or redevelopment of a parcel if the Planning Board determines that the new use will not significantly increase the demand for parking compared to the former use. TANSLEY - Renovation of the top 2 floors into residential demands significantly less parking than does offices (its current use, although vacant; 18 vs. 50).
e. If the Planning Board determines that the demand for parking will be less than the standard because some customers/users will walk or take alternative transportation to the site. TANSLEY - There is a real possibility less parking would be needed as people no longer have the same number of vehicles per household in Downtown areas and public transit is available on Main Street.
41
In these cases, the owner of the property seeking the reduction or his/her representative shall be responsible for providing documentation to the Planning Board substantiating the reduced parking demand or alternative supply.The applicants noted that without this parking waiver, their project would not move forward and the property would remain vacant. At this time, there is no demand for commercial/office space to support the cost of the improvements needed.
A further part of that discussion also involved residential use of parking (generally,during the evening) vs. office parking (day-time). The residential properties effectively reduce the day-time demand of the offices, and create that demand during a periodwhere, at this time, there appears to be available space in the public parking spaces:
Excerpt from the “Draft Parking Management Program” dated June 4, 2018:
Overnight parking in unlimited spaces in the Main Street District. During the parking review process, the need for overnight parking by residents was identified. The Police Department conducted a point-in-time survey of surface lots to give us a sense of what that use looks like:
Of the surface lots surveyed, 53-62% of the cars were registered to Biddeford, while the rest were out of town; 10-12% were out of state and so likely UNE students. There would appear to be ample supply (200 plus spaces) to meet residential needs in the downtown in public spaces, where in general, few private spaces are available. For the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown and Mill Districts: the supply of parking, including driveways and street parking, is adequate to handle those parking needs. It would also suggest some availability for daytime parking if we began managing time limits by time of day use.
42
VI. Practices around the Country/Region: Staff review practices in Maine and around the country. The trend is to not require parking in redevelopment strategies.
Locally, for example, the City of Saco has similar waiver provisions for parking in the Downtown (B-3 and MU-1) District.
Off-street parking required.(1) A minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the specifications in this section in any district whenever any new use is established or existing use is enlarged. However, existing uses are considered grandfathered for the number of parking spaces required on June 19, 1995, and need provide additionally only the difference between that required for the grandfathered use and the new or expanded use.[Amended 6-19-1995](2) Off-street public parking lots may be utilized to fulfill parking requirements in lieu of on-premises parking when such public parking lots have been provided for that purpose.(3) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section requiring on-site parking, existing buildings in the B-3 District, north and west of the Boston and Maine Railroad only, and in the MU-1 District may receive a parking waiver in whole or in part from the Planning Board, when a structure is expanded, when a change of use requires additional parking spaces be provided, or when an existing building or use undergoes internal expansion. Such expansion includes the reuse or rehabilitation of unused or underutilized space. The Planning Board shall hear the application for the parking waiver as a conditional use and before approving it shall make a finding that it meets the following standards, as well as the conditional use standards of § 230-901D:(a) On-site parking is not available;(b) Off-site parking as described in § 230-708C(2) is not available;(c) The lack of on-site parking will not create excessive congestion in the neighborhood.[Amended 6-19-1995; 5-21-2012]
In Sanford municipal lots and on-street parking may be used to satisfy parking requirements in the Downtown:
Parking shall be provided on the lot occupied by the use for which the parking is required or on an adjacent lot owned or controlled by such use. In addition, uses located within the Urban Zone may provide all or part of the required off-street parking through any of the following:(c) For nonresidential uses, off-street parking located in a municipal parking lot provided by the City, subject to the Planning Board or Site Plan Review Committee finding that there is adequate available parking to meet the needs of the use based on the parking standards of this chapter. The Planning Board or Site Plan Review Committee may allow legal on-street parking to be used to meet the parking requirement of a nonresidential use in the Urban and Industrial Redevelopment Zones if it finds that this parking can reasonably be expected to be available for customers of the use and is located within close proximity of the use.
43
While Lewiston has eliminated parking requirements in the downtown in lieu their parking garages, they have an additional requirement that is of interest here:
(4) No additional parking spaces shall be required for any structure that has been designated as significant for historic preservation under article XV, section 3 of this Code that is proposed for reuse…
The Biddeford Downtown District is outlined by MSRD 1 and the Mill Area Historic District is outlined by MSRD 3.
Not only in Maine, but throughout the country, communities are utilizing waivers for parking in order to encourage and facilitate downtown redevelopment and infill. Many traditional downtowns, like Biddeford, predate the automobile and were designed and/or evolved without parking in mind. As a result, the trend is for communities eliminate parking requirements to spurdowntown development areas. They are expanding their parking garage facilities through infrastructure investment, recognizing that parking structures tend to be an efficient land use alternative to field parking, while providing redevelopment/increase in downtown property values.
Not requiring parking, or at a minimum allowing waivers for parking in Downtowns, serves many important public policy goals, including:
Encouraging walking and bicycling instead of automobile travel; Encouraging the use of public transit, ridesharing/carpooling; Creating additional quality housing opportunities for people to live (and work) in
Downtown Biddeford; Creating a vibrant and aesthetic atmosphere where people want to go, shop, eat, and
recreate; and Facilitating the redevelopment and re-use of historic buildings that otherwise may be
not only under-utilized but may be entirely unutilized.
VII. Potential impacts of a moratorium on parking waivers. Simply stated, important re-development projects in the Biddeford Downtown and Mill Districts would not happen. Buildings like 5 Washington Street would not be redeveloped and would likely remain vacant. The results of not allowing redevelopment projects to occur because of concerns about parking would have net negative effects, such as:
Not realizing increased investment in buildings and the resulting property tax revenue that comes from such investment;
Leaving undeveloped vacant buildings well short of full code life/safety compliance No additional people being able to work and live in redeveloped downtown structures
would further reduce the availability of disposable income to be spent in the downtown area.
If projects do move forward and are required to provide parking, possible results include:
44
o a higher cost of redevelopment which is then passed on to tenants be them residential or non-residential;
o The demolition of dilapidated structures unable to redevelop because of parking requirements could create gaps in the fabric of the downtown, hindering pedestrian experience, and permanently impacting Biddeford’s historic sense of place.
o The creation of lower tax value surface parking lots throughout the downtown, potentially destabilizing the tax base and the sense of place.
The inability to waive parking requirements in the downtown is a concern for the development community. It could very well have a very negative effect on the market and bring the present interest in the community to a halt. Staff would be glad to further survey that community in a more formal way and obtain a fuller sense of the issue, but brief conversations leave us confident that market interest would decline.
45
Biddeford Parking Management Program(PMP)
Draft
June, 2018
46
Refining Parking Policy
• The city has no formal parking management program• Publicly owned parking is free to users; paid for by
property taxpayers. • Some people benefit from this policy, some do not• City policies should be fair and equitable; competition
for spaces will intensify the inequities • The changes in Policy below address these inequities.
47
The steps leading up to the PMPWith garage design authorization, the Council directed staff to prepare a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to identify how future supply and demand will be managed The PMP will foster growth and manage competing interests fairly and fiscally Solving the parking challenge is expected to have a direct and tangible impact on growth in property tax valuation: $100 million + to four times that estimate, helping to stabilize future tax rates, post parking investments This PMP document:
(1) Remains consistent with the 2014referendum prohibiting parking meters(2) Provides free, on-street short-term parking; and, (3) creates a funding mechanism shifting the cost of parking within the study area to users rather than taxpayers.
The PMP is consistent with recommendations of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
48
The Study Area
49
Framing the PMPA PMP is a dynamic, flexible process responsive to changes in business occupancy, area activity, needs, and municipal goals:
• Understand localized supply and demand issues.• Manage parking turnover according to time and use demands at each
location.• Promote economic development through parking management• Be aware of impact into traditional surrounding neighborhoods. • Understands peak market demands • Shifts from the taxpayer funded “free” public parking model to a user-fee
model.• Recognizes that short-term parking demand will grow as vacancies fill,
resulting in nearby displacement of current long-term parking; solutions are needed.
• Implements a parking wayfinding program. 50
The PMP will be implemented in a three-phase approachPhase 1:
Short-term parking options will increase as many areas that now allow unlimited all-day parking will change to 2-hour parking.This new limitation will encourage long-term users (largely employees of downtown businesses) to make use of municipal surface lots (e.g. Washington Street lot)Greater availability of short-term spaces will greatly benefit customers of downtown businesses thereby increasing economic activity.
Phase one Short term parking are shown on the following map:
51
52
Phase 2
• Municipal lots that are now free will move to user-paid parking, likely by installing pay-and-display kiosks
• 319 spaces will be affected by this change and will begin generating revenue for the City
• This change will be put in place immediately following the implementation of Phase 1; with the base charge increasing three times over an 18 month increment to the full value when the Garage opens
53
54
Phase 3
•A parking garage will be constructed at 3 Lincoln Street, as approved by Council earlier this year.
•This garage will provide roughly 450 spaces in phase 1 and 650 spaces in phase 2
•This new facility will provide certainty to businesses and developers that parking supply in Biddeford can accommodate new and projected demand.
55
56
Every Phase will be Evaluated forimpact, both good and bad
57
Location Existing Conditions Proposed Change
Street Area of Change to 2-hr Parking
Lincoln St. Unlimited Main St. to Pearl St.
Jefferson St. Unlimited Main St. to South St.
Center St. Unlimited Jefferson St. to 42 Center St.
South St. Unlimited Adams St. to Jefferson St.
Adams St. Unlimited Main St. to Jefferson St.
Bacon St. Unlimited Alfred St. to Foss St.
Emery St. Unlimited Main St. to Bacon St.
Hill St. Unlimited Main St. to Bacon St.
Street/Lot Street/Lot Area of Change to 30 Minute Parking
Main St. 2 Hour At City Hall
Jefferson St 1 Hour Adjacent to 265 Main St.
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 spaces on the corner of Franklin & Federal Streets
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 Spaces at 42 Franklin St
Franklin St. Municipal Lot Unlimited 2 spaces at 69 Jefferson St.
Street/Lot Street/Lot Remaining 1-hour Parking
Adams St. 1 Hour 9 spaces adjacent to City Hall
City Hall 1 Hour 4 spaces at rear entrance 58
Parking Supply
Type Mill
District
Main
Street Area
Combined
Area
Municipal Surface Lots 16 403 419
Private Surface Lots 696 1,009 1,705
On-Street Spaces (all types) 43 722 765
Total 755 2,134 2,889
Based largely on Rich Associates reporting, total spaces of all types in the study area equals 2,889.
59
Parking Demand – Mill District
Demand is presented by current conditions, full occupancy (build-out), and with new development at 3 Lincoln Street.
1,597
2,176
3,115
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Existing Total Demand Projected TotalDemand - Full Build-out
Projected Demand - 3Lincoln St Mixed Use
60
Parking Demand – Main Street
26032946
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Existing Total Demand Projected Total Demand - Full Build-out
Demand is presented in current conditions and full occupancy (build-out)61
Supply and Demand Together – Deficits
Based on current supply and both current and projected demand, a deficit of parking will soon grow worse and thwart new development
62
Total Deficits
Looking at the Study Area as a whole, the deficits are significantly high enough to undermine both new build-out of the Mill District and new businesses along Main Street.
63
Ramifications
If no action were to be taken to alleviate parking in the downtown area, the deficit of parking spaces would grow alarmingly. A full 3,172 spaces would be needed to meet the demand of all available existing mixed-use space as well as development of 3 Lincoln Street.
A lack of reliable parking would effectively destroy continued revitalization of Main Street and the Mill District
64
A Parking Management Plan puts the tools in place to balance the needs of present and future parking
needs.
65
Appendix Materials of Importance
Appendix 2: Current PolicyThe city over the years has made decisions to create parking lots to be used for free parking in the downtown. The city adopted minimal short-term time limited parking along the streets and surface lots Workers downtown take advantage of these all-day spaces. In 2014, a citizen petition banned the use of parking meters in the downtown. This action limits the ability to shift the cost of parking to users.
Appendix 3: Public and Business InputAppendix 4: Supply and Demand analysis
66
Appendix 3: Community InputCustomers want free short-term parking. Time Limits on the street need to be tied to business uses. Employees would like a secure parking space, at no cost or the least cost possible. Employees are competing for short-term spaces. Most business owners agree, more parking is necessary
67
