Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall
Open Town Hall

What do you think of the proposal for a parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive?

41 registered statements

As a resident of the Provost neighborhood, I think a parking permit program is very needed in this area. The homes were not designed to accommodate the number of car-owning residents, and consequently travel is oftentimes difficult around Slate Canyon drive. In addition, as a cyclist and runner accessing Bonneville Shore Line Trail and Slate Canyon, the high number of parked cars overflowing on the street has made biking and running more dangerous. I strongly support the implementation of a parking permit program for the benefit of the neighborhood community. I think a parking permit program is a wonderful idea. It’s impossible to find parking on Slate Canyon. It would make the neighborhood safer and increase the value of the homes, also it would add revenue to the city I don’t see any downside. It would also make sure those that are not following the occupancy laws for the city would be caught. We strongly oppose the alternative two hour program. As a home owner on Slate Canyon it is a major inconvenience for me to not be able to park more than 2 hours during the day in front of my own home. The enforcement hours are too late in the morning to help with the least safe time which is when people leave their homes in the morning to go to work (7-9 am). I would be willing to pay for an annual night time permit so that I and my guests can park. But we would rather have no program at all than a 2 hour limit. One of the major issues that has not been addressed is the number of residents of Aspen Summit and Canyon Meadows that park on Slate Canyon drive because those dwellings are over occupied or because there is insufficient parking and no on street parking. The cars frequently parked in front of our home are owned by residents of Aspen Summit, we watch them park and cross the street to Aspen Summit each night. The daytime 2 hour enforcement with no night time enforcement does nothing to solve that problem. We would prefer a solution that holds the developers and landlords of the high density housing developments accountable for creating parking issues that bleed onto nearby streets. I am in favor of reducing the size of the area to allow for parking on Slate Canyon Park Road to allow for overflow parking for canyon use (and use of the park if that is built in the future), since that does not seem to be an issue compared to the parking problems that occur in front of residential homes. This is not a good idea. Each house on slate canyon has a garage and has a drive way. There is enough parking for each resident and their guests. This is also too much money for the police to enforce the permit and their time is better spent elsewhere. Finally, this permit would cause parking problems in canyon meadow, alpine loop, etc. so this would just transfer the problem and not solve it. Slate Canyon Drive was designed to be a major collector street for the hundreds of units that have been built along the hillside. Its streetscape is unique in Provo, with small 4,000 sq ft lots and large single family homes. Traditional planning precludes this combination, since it is unsafe to have individual driveways backing out into a collector street. Since the lots are small, it means there are almost twice as many driveways along the street than there is in a regular neighborhood making the situation even more unsafe. Therefore reducing the number of cars on the street, that block visibility for commuters, should be a top priority. If the Council implements the day time parking restrictions, then the hours should be extended and be from 6 AM to 6 PM. Most commuters leave for work between 6 and 9 AM, which means this is the most dangerous part of the day when they are backing out into traffic. If the Council implements the night time permit program, and you want to reduce the number of cars that end up stored on the street in the day time, then you may want to restrict each property to only one permit and not allow them to be transferable. Since the homes have double car driveways and garages, each property would then have 4 off street spaces and one on the street. A full parking permit program sounds like it would be very costly and would be opening a can of worms. I like the idea of reducing parking near intersections and enforcing current parking laws. There is probably a law about not blocking driveways currently on the books that can be enforced. I am not in favor of the permit program as proposed. Certainly not the entire length of Slate Canyon Dr. The benefit isn’t worth the cost. We all know what this is for - this is to curb the amount of singles and drivers within a home. Some on slate canyon have multiple driving kids, some have work and personal vehicles. Some can park all the vehicles to fit their needs in front of their homes without issue. Parking permits are a burden placed on residents unnecessarily. If the concern is that the developer of the townhomes and condos didn’t provide enough parking, let’s make it their problem. The city needs to stand up against the developer and work this out so those on slate canyon don’t pay the price. Many of us went to the neighborhood meetings in the past and most did NOT want permits. Let’s not make things more difficult just for select groups. Permit parking on Slate Canyon is unnecessary. As a resident of Slate Canyon I disagree with this proposal. Parking is not a problem here, and adding a permit zone will only make it more difficult for my family and friends to come visit me. Please do not pass this program. As a resident I oppose this measure. Parking on this road has posed no problems for me as a resident and making this permit only will make it harder when people come to visit me. This would be incredibly wasteful and inconvenient. Creating a permit system deliberately targets renters and single professionals in order to maintain the illusion of an "ideal neighborhood" where nuclear families with small children are favored above others. It also penalizes families with teenage and adult children who still live at home in order to make ends meet. It is, simply put, classist and narrow-minded. I see the potential of a parking permit or two hour limit hurting the walkability of this area. People unable to secure a permit will squeeze into driveways and make it harder to maneuver. This would especially be a problem for people with strollers. I also don’t want children any closer to the road. A walkable neighborhood is a safer neighborhood. My thought process is more to allow two or three permits per home, and enforce parking so that developments that planned poorly will not be taking over side streets. If there are problems with speed on this road, it seems more helpful to put up some raised crosswalks/speed bumps (as much as I hate them) or other natural speed barriers to make it safer for those backing out of driveways. The two hour limit during the day does not seem helpful. As a resident, I would hate to have to move my car if I was working from home if my driveway was not available. It would make me feel like a guest in my neighborhood. Let's use facts rather than emotions. Fact: Staff said there is no need for a permit program since street parking is not over utilized. So no need to even discuss an alternative unless we are looking to satisfy someone's desires or emotions instead of using facts. Why should an entire city bear the burden of a parking program in one area? Charge the $300 per household to enforce the parking. The rest of us shouldn't pay for neighborhood grievances. Fact: More people work from home since the pandemic. Implementing a 2 hour parking program would be awful. Even with only 3 cars per house, one would always be forced to park on the street. Thus forcing them to move their car during the work day. Some folks think a street that is paid for with tax payer money should not be used by taxpayers to park. They say it is unsafe, but where are the FACTS? Please use FACTS and not peoples desires and emotions. I like this idea, because it will make people think twice about whether or not they actually need cars. From Slate Canyon you can get pretty much anywhere in Provo pretty easily on a bike within 30 minutes or so. When riding my bike on that road, the greatest danger to me is people leaving doors open or parking in the bike lane, which means that I have to move out into the lane meant for cars, which is frustrating for me and any driver who might end up behind me. I would charge more for the permits though. If people can pay for car insurance, gas, and Netflix, Hulu, etc, they should be able to make a one time payment of a few dollars more than $15. The Provo City Zoning Ordinance for Slate Canyon Drive states that each house has a limit of only 4 cars per house (which is called “off street parking”.) Off street parking means that each home can only have as many cars as will fit inside their property (2 cars in garage and 2 in driveway.). Slate Canyon is a Public Street so anyone can park anywhere, which is fine, but the problem seems to happen when homes have 5,6,7 permanent cars at one house. That is above the 4 car limit and against the ordinance. This can create over-crowded parking problems with poor visibility when residents try to pull out of their driveways. Speeding cars... another serious & dangerous concern. The police cannot be up there 24/7 so there needs to be either stop signs to slow people down or speed bumps. The street is dangerous because there are no crosswalks or stop signs to slow people down for 2 full miles (from 7/11 to the round-abouts on 300 south. Very long, speedy, dangerous race track. I’m surprised someone hasn’t sued the city for not taking this road seriously and getting the city engineers up there to look at all the dangerous (if not illegal) angles, blind spots, twists and turns, side roads, speeding cars, no cross walks...serious safety issues. I am neither for or against a parking permit. The real danger is speeding cars. That needs to be fixed immediately. Street over parking is not just a problem on Slate Canyon but a south side problem. I live on the other Nevada Ave and there are so many homes renting out rooms that in the evening there is no place for a visitor to park. Most (not all) homes in our area rent out rooms and with that comes with more cars some days it is so full that cars park blocking my driveway so that I cannot see to get out easily. I have asked for help from the PD and zone enforcement but been told "we don't have the personal to enforce anything". Parking is not the real problem just a side effect to no real affordable housing. this seems like a band-aid to the real problem. Once the new apartments and town homes are finished on South State Street in south Provo watch the parking alone there become a problem. I use Slate Canyon to access State Street and try not to go into the housing are out of respect for those who live there. Please don't pass parking rules unless the people who live on Slate Canyon want them pasted and then only if you can fairly enforce them. The South Side has become a dumping ground for anything the city does not want any place else. After 36 years in our home if I could find any where else affordable to move I would but for people of my age on a fixed income I must stay in the home I worked so hard to pay off and can afford until I am taxed out of it. I hope you have talked to the PD to see if they can or will enforce your new rule/law before you bother passing it. The PD only enforces the laws they want to or can. Don't do a parking permit program, please. Especially in this day and age of working from home, people aren't getting in their cars and going places as much anymore. You don't even need to leave your house for food haha. A better solution would be better city planning, and not letting developers squeeze massive houses next to one another, and not plan adequate space for parking. Blaming the lack of parking on singles renting in the area is just as dumb as putting the blame on big families with lots of drivers, and therfore lots of cars. Get the city's help to plan some mini parking lots here and there, and hold housing developers accountable for including more parking space in new developments. I do not support a parking permit program, as I don't believe it's the best solution to this communities' problem. I strongly disagree with the parking permits. You have parking in your garage and driveway. This parking permit only helps those enforcing it. They make money from every permit and towing companies along with neighbors having a incentive to get people towed if they do not have a permit. It is nice to park in my drive way and when I have family over that they can park freely on the side of the street with out worrying that I need to get parking permits and passes. We are not a apartment complex we are all mostly houses on this street. I am against both proposals. The staff alternative does not address resident concerns at all. The resident proposal presents too great of costs to the city for very little change. Five hours of restrictions for more than $33,000 a year? It needs to pay for itself—or come close to that goal. I agree that what is not stated here is that a goal of this is to reinforce zoning ordinances. As a single home owner who has lived in the neighborhood for nearly 10 years I STRONGLY SUPPORT whatever it takes to ENFORCE ZONING ORDINANCES, even if it means parking permits. Zoning ordinances protect the experience and value of communities. It is not targeting, it is not discrimination. However, it doesn't seem like the proposed permit system makes economic sense. How about increasing the rate of the permit to a monthly fee that covers the cost of enforcement? If I'm considering renting on Slate and I'm the 4th renter who would have to park on the street at a cost of $30-50/month I might reconsider. Questions/statements for Provo City: - Are there not other areas in Provo that would benefit from having the added staff member? Could the cost (increased permit fee) not be spread to these areas as well? - I don't understand how the two hour permit is helpful. - What's the thought process for transferability of permits? If the goal of residence is to reduce the number of cars parked on Slate why would an owner want to give their neighbor the ability to park 6 cars on their property rather than the 5 that they currently have capacity for (2 in the garage, 2 in the driveway, 1 on the street)? Six cars for a single family? Is this the problem? I don't think the two hour permit will help the parking problems and I don't support it. It needs to be overnight or it's not worth the money. I think this is a safety issue. Many of us walk and bike on Slate Canyon and visibility is low, especially in the mornings. I often don't see cars backing out of their driveways because of all the cars on the street. I favor a longer permit program. As a resident homeowner on Slate Canyon who originally supported a parking permit plan, I am opposed to the current plan of only one permanent on street parking pass. The garages and driveways of most of the homes here are not really wide enough to fully support two vehicles. Please go back to the drawing board on what’s best for the community. This is not a good resolution. It s about time, this area has needed something to help with the parking problem. As a neighbor I support this program. The biggest issue on Slate Canyon for me is people speeding. The city should do a better job at enforcing the speed and put in speed bumps or speed cameras. I have always been able to park without issue but I worry about my friends and family being able to visit with a permit program. As someone who works from home, the 2 hour limit proposal does not seem viable either. I attended 2 of the parking meetings last year and it seemed like the same people were pushing the agenda with the majority of residents showing opposition to the idea. I oppose the parking permit proposal. This entire parking problem was created by the developers of the condos across Slate Canyon Dr. We never had any problems parking or having guests before they were built. They did not build with enough parking for their residents. Make them figure out a viable option without inconveniencing actual homeowners and making us cover the costs. If you want to help homeowners then give each home 1-2 marked spots on the street and give enforcement a way to deal with violations. We had someone recently literally park in front of our driveway and enforcement couldn't even send someone out! We were stuck not heing able to even get in our driveway as well as having to find street parking late at night. Again this is a problem caused by too much street parking because of rental properties, NOT homeowners. I've lived in the Provost neighborhood for 30+ years and frequent the Provost South neighborhood often. I believe a parking program would be very effective in reducing all of the cars parked on the streets and hopefully the over-occupancy issue. Residents/homeowners should be allowed to park in front of their own homes only. After reading the posted notice, the current options given were not what I was told about. The third option of having the city actually enforce their laws more actively is the only real option given that would be a real benefit to the street in some capacity. The other two do not help any resident on the street, all it does is force unnecessary burden on the homeowners. The third option is the only option that should be implemented if at all, from these choices. None of them fix the problems, and only create new ones that will end up harming the residents along the street. This entire thing needs to go back to the drawing board and be brought back with options that won’t cause more problems than they seek to fix. The primary proposal is well constructed and seems fair. I believe enforcing parking is a simpler alternative to enforcing occupancy. I believe most complaints related to occupancy are parking related. If there are four single residents and two ride bikes, I don't see a reason to enforce occupancy. The Staff-recommended Alternative does not solve the problem since most of the crowded parking occurs overnight. The only reasonable way to control speeding on Slate Canyon would be to add speed bumps. "Based off staff counts, there is no need to reduce parking congestion because between 2% and 51% of parking stalls remain empty during peak usage" and "Because staff always found parking vacancies on Slate Canyon Drive from Slate Canyon Park Road to 1400 South it is unlikely that a permit program that allows up to 100% parking capacity to be used would reduce parking utilization." So why are we even discussing this? (And I agree with those numbers, as a homeowner in the area who takes lots of midnight walks and always sees loads of open parking at all hours of the night.) Most importantly, they're public roads: the public should be able to park on them. The homes on Slate Canyon all have driveways and garages for their vehicles; they should use them. If they have more vehicles than they have off-street parking, then they should go ahead and park on public streets . . . which is also true of literally every other resident and taxpayer in the area, including those who live in Aspen Summit or Canyon Meadow. Why do the people making this proposal think it's fine if they have too many vehicles for their residence and need street parking, but it's not fine if other people need street parking? The double standards here are astounding. (With all of the above, it's really hard not to suspect that the whole parking issue is just a cover for an attempt to drive renters and young professionals from the neighborhood in favor of families with children.) I have lived in this area since before there were homes along most of Slate Canyon Drive. There was NOT an on-street parking problem until the town homes and condos were built on the east side of the road. The parking increased immediately after the housing developments to the east were allowed to have "no on-street parking" rules. This pushed all the extra vehicles out onto Slate Canyon Drive in front of OTHER people's homes. It would be ideal if the newer housing developments could provide the parking needed for their own residents, but it doesn't seem like this is even being discussed as an option. Sadly, this was a problem caused by the developer and now the residents on both sides of the street have to figure out what to do with it. Regarding the two solutions being proposed here, the idea of requiring permits seems like it will reduce parking overall, but it makes it harder for those of us who visit neighbors in this area to park. If we are stopping in at several houses in rapid succession, we would have to ask someone for a visitor pass just to go from door to door briefly. (I know neighbors who have received parking tickets multiple times while parking in this area to visit/care for others from church or school.) Having a 2 hour limit makes it easier to be neighborly on short stops without having to run a visitor pass to and from our car before and after each visit. Either option should result in a reduction in illegal rentals, but the 2 hour limit seems less difficult to orchestrate. However, it does seem unfair to put the burden of the solution on those who live in the homes that aren't contributing to the problem. While I understand there are visibility concerns, and long-term parking issues that appear to be impacting Slate Canyon residents, the permit program seems excessive to the issue and - to my mind - creates a greater potential issue. Implementing a parking permit program appears to target residences with too many people. This may result in those individuals parking further into other neighborhoods that don't have permits and have negative impacts for those other neighborhoods. Additionally, the hours proposed for "free parking" seem incompatible with regular hours. For instance, a lawfully parking resident could find that they are unable to find parking until after 1am if all stalls were taken up. As a person who drives the area several times a week, there does always appear to be parking available. With more people working from home at present, I am concerned a 2 hour limit could have unforeseen short-term impacts for residents. Perhaps if it was 2hrs for non-resident stickered vehicles, or something that allowed residents to live without concern about how long their car has been on the road I'd be more supportive. If the bigger concern is around people driving in that space unsafely - high speeds, unsafe parking practices, etc. - then maybe the better longterm investment for residents, road users, and nearby neighborhoods is around increased no parking spaces and traffic calming measures. It will also require local residents to drive as they'd expect others to. I've been closely followed at 25mph by more than one vehicle heading to the condos. In my opinion, based on the outlined problems and the proposed fixes, the proposals don't seem to get at the heart of the problem and seem overly restrictive in light of additional burdens they place on the residents in that neighborhood. I really want to see some sort of parking program- two hours or permit. I would prefer a permit program. I think the idea of trying to enforce something that already is a law is not going to work. It is already a law- and hasn’t worked and parking is a huge problem right now. That’s like trying to fix a leak with tape. It doesn’t fix a problem and is a temporary solution. There will still be parking problems- and it really doesn’t fix a long term issue. It is the houses who have tons of cars who need the road to park because of occupancy issues causing a lot of problems. I know having some sort of parking permit will help with the issues of renters not following the rules here. I know of a few houses with more than 3 related people around us- and it makes parking a nightmare. I don’t doubt the inadequate parking for the complexes also creates issues. It is frustrating when people who live in the area but not on Slate Canyon (like we do) think simply following the 72 hour rule will fix the problem. The houses with 5 unrelated people move their cars for school or work but come back and park in front of our house and all up and down the street leaving no parking for people who are visiting us. It is a sucky problem, but enforcing a permit (like done in other parts of Provo) will solve major problems and help with making the area safer. It will also help with issues of over occupancy of unrelated renters- and make people really think about their parking. Plus $15 is not that big of a deal- and would go a long way to help everybody on our street. I think this program is ridiculous, and a scam on the cities part to get money from residents. I understand that there is a parking issue on this road but it is cause by new construction that the city council approved without requiring adequate parking in the new construction communities. These new condos and townhome communities are private and don’t allow on street parking this forces people to park on Slate Canyon Rd. The city council needs to be held responsible for not doing their job and requiring adequate parking in new communities. The residents on Slate Canyon Rd should not be charged for the city councils mistake. The issue needs to corrected in the private community that the city council approved, not on the public roadway. This parking proposal is not perfect but it is vital. Our neighborhood needs to grow in a positive way. A good number of residents want affordable home ownership, opportunities to rent accessory apartments, batching overlays (4 singles) and change. A good number of residents are concerned that changes like this will decrease quality of life, crowd streets, invite investor exploitation and create a neighborhood unattractive to families looking to settle. Both opinions are valid. Both have merritt. Parking regulation that would be tied to the rental dwelling licence could be a powerful tool for positive change. Pass the original proposal or meet with the team that presented it before dismissing it. You should know the background and facts first. I have owned a house, and lived on Slate Canyon drive for almost 25 years. The parking problem arose when the condos and town homes East of Slate Canyon were built, with inadequate parking for those residents. The 1st proposal is placing a burden on the residents of Slate Canyon drive. I shouldn't be required to have a permit to park my car, in front of my property, on a public street. I definitely should not be required to pay to have the privilege to park on a public street. Also during times when I have more than 2 or 3 (easily up to 5 or 6 in my case) family members, with cars, visiting me, where do they park overnight? In other words, how many permits will i have for family and friends? One more thing on proposal 1. If I have to pay for parking, on my street, what will YOU, Council Members, do to ensure I have a space, that I am now paying for, available to park every night? If the answer is, "we don't know," then that proposal is completely useless to Slate Canyon Residents. A BIG "NO" on proposal 1. The 2nd proposal is ridiculous. I can think of so many times Where a 2 hour maximum parking limit would cause issues. Take, for example, when friends come to visit to have dinner, or watch a movie, basketball game, or a football game, or just to visit!!! Those events are going to be well over 2 hours. This proposal would make it so that my family and friends could not come for extended visits. It would eliminate the ability for family members who come to visit, to stay for more than 2 hours. City Council Members...how would you like this restriction with YOUR friends and family, in YOUR neighborhood? Again, the real problem is with the condos and town homes to the East of Slate Canyon drive, and the over occupancy of rental units in the neighborhood. The city allowed those structures to be built with narrow roads and very few resident parking places. The city needs to do something about that mistake. Require those complex owners, not the people that live on Slate Canyon, to resolve parking issues that spill onto Slate Canyon Dr. How about tearing out some of the green spaces in those complexes and putting in more parking places. Enforce the current rules that are in place for over occupancy on Slate Canyon, rentals and in the complexes East of Slate Canyon, and much of this parking problem on Slate Canyon will be eliminated. Proposal 1 and proposal 2 do nothing but punish the law abiding home owners on Slate Canyon drive. Proposal 3 is the only sane and sensible choice. Please vote on proposal 3, and focus on enforcing the laws (especially over-occupancy) that already exist. I think it is vital that we do something to restrict parking in the area, and that we need to take new action, because the current rules are not solving the problems and I don't think that enforcing them will solve it either. I disagree with the statement that people are not parking south of 1400 south either - they do so on a daily basis, and if you don't include that area in the parking permit area, then all you will do is push parking that direction and it will become a problem. People park far too close to residents' driveways and it is extremely dangerous with how people speed on the road. Residents can't see when pulling out and you're taking your life into your own hands to just pull out of your driveway. Then when there is snow and ice you have to worry if you slide or slip at all you'll hit a parked car that is too close to your driveway. It seems to me that the houses on the street all have garages and driveways. Residents should park in their garages and in their own driveways. I'm personally for no street parking allowed at all (as it is in the Canyon Meadows Development) but if we can't go that route, permit parking is a good option - however I feel that no overnight parking should be allowed period, between the hours of midnight and 8 am. Please do something to protect residents and their property. Thank you! I am opposed to the parking permit program. I walk on Slate Canyon drive regularly. Homes have wide driveways and garages, so they can fit 4 vehicles off-road. I don’t think the parking permit addresses the safety issue. Cars will drive just as fast, if not faster, if there are fewer cars parked on the street. I think increasing the non-parking areas on the street near intersections would increase safety. The condos on the east side of Slate Canyon Drive do not have adequate parking. I think the real issue is to decrease housing density in the future and require developers to provide adequate parking. I think the 2 hour daytime limit addresses more of the proposed issues than the overnight parking permit; however, it would limit homeowners ability to have visitors. I am also opposed to increased fees and increase costs for parking enforcement on a public street in our neighborhood. The parking on Slate Canyon Drive in front of the Aspen Summit community should NOT be subject to a permit program, because we desperately need parking there for visitors as well as residents. We weren't even given enough parking for what the houses were zoned for (3 individuals), let alone visitor parking, which is also needed. Adding a permit system would not benefit us. It was already painful to have visitors over (outside of the pandemic, of course), and adding a permit system which destroys the only overflow options we have (Slate Canyon Dr.) creates even more barriers to our residents and their visitors. I'm concerned a broad solution to all of Slate Canyon will not suffice in helping the most people. If we can break up the sections of Slate Canyon and focus on the needs for those specific sections, we should be able to find a suitable solution. For example, the permit system *might* work for the parking issue South of the Aspen Summit neighborhood, but it would cause problems for Aspen Summit and the North section of the road beyond. My proposal is that if nothing else, keep Aspen Summit as an exception, based on previously outlined parking concerns. (i.e. do not implement a permit system around, in front of, or North of Aspen Summit). I gave Shannon Ellsworth a detailed explanation of how we can improve parking in Aspen Summit with City & HOA collaboration, so please look over that. I was a parking enforcement officer for two years and I am confident that a permit system will not accomplish any of the goals attached to this proposal. Parking enforcement is a Band-Aid for insufficient and poorly designed parking. It does not change behavior and creates other problems. —Jess Brown I oppose. Reasoning: The burden on Slate Canyon residents exceeds the desires of some within the community to curb a perceived occupancy problem in adjacent townhomes. The impact of the permit program will be mixed. I foresee the following: 1.) Households along Slate who have filled their garages with items will clear their garages. (more rear yard sheds, more impervious surface) 2.) Households along Slate will move vehicles from the street onto the driveway/into the garage. 3.) Households with frequent overnight guests will park down the hill in the neighborhood to the west. All of those above are annoyances. None of them correct the perceived problem. In theory, parking space reduction would reduce overoccupancy, however, the claims of overoccupancy may be without merit. Let's examine: 1.) Aspen Summit: These units have an occupancy limit for singles of three. Each unit has a two car garage and driveway, for a total of four (4) spaces. Many units have three bedrooms, some have four. Even if a unit is over-occupied at four singles, the parking program will not disallow four cars at any given unit. The permit program could clear on-street parking space, but will have no effect on overoccupancy. 2.) Canyon Meadow primarily consists of three bedroom units and has an occupancy limit of three. Some units are smaller. Because of this, Canyon Meadow is an example of a townhome project with no overoccupancy issues. Provo City Code dictates that rental units can only have the number of vehicles as off-street parking stalls allocated to the unit. The code does not have this restriction on owner-occupied units. The majority of Canyon Meadow units have a two car garage with access to at least one off-street parking stall. This means that most units only have space for three people, have an occupancy limit of three, and have three parking stalls. Some garages are a bit tight, especially with household storage. The proposed parking permit program will cause owners to clean out their garages. 3.) Alpine Summit consists of three bedroom units (primarily) and each unit has four parking stalls. Again, no impact. In sum, this is more burdensome than useful. If this measure is intended to clear up a problem, we need actual data that first supports the conclusion that there is a problem. I am a homeowner on Slate Canyon Dr., and I oppose the parking permit program. I find that the restrictions of the permit as set down limit residents on the street from having visitors, especially late or overnight as can happen in the case of visiting family. It is also an extra fee that many residents on the street may not need just for the ability to park in front of their home. It would personally affect me and those I live with; due to our different schedules, street parking is often necessary to facilitate coming and going from home, and under this program, it would be an extra expense. As noted, the extra expense will also not cover the cost of enforcement. Banking on the revenue from enforcement and citations may lead to the predatory enforcement problem that Provo has dealt with in the past in order to cover costs. I also think that enforcing a parking permit program on Slate Canyon will extend an existing complaint to other parts of the neighborhood. It is a frequent complaint that the residents of the condos and their visitors park along Slate Canyon Dr. and other less-enforced areas due to the inadequate parking spaces available in those areas. This would increase if residents and visitors of Slate Canyon Dr. felt under financial or temporal pressure (as in, knowing they would be staying late), and they would park along other areas to walk. Cars must go somewhere. It also may increase as the new housing developments seem to be built with the same restricted (i.e. inadequate) parking availability in mind. The program in this area is leveled against particular demographics. As a single resident, I hear many complaints against the young single professional demographic, and certainly this seems that it might be targeted against them, as many measures in this neighborhood are leveled to push them out in favor of families. Whether it is the extra expense or simply the inability to park at their own residence, young professionals may feel this is another marker of unwelcome. But families with teenagers or multiple cars also seem to be a target, which seems counter to the argument that some residents of this neighborhood wish to bring in families instead of young single professionals. This does not seem to create peace in Slate Canyon or Provost South if residents of particular demographics feel that they are being singled out. It seems from the commentary on this issue that the concern is unsafe driving practices along Slate Canyon Dr., a steep hill road. I think it would be more effective to restrict parking around corners and promote safer driving practices, like obeying the speed limit, not tailgating, and parking away from driveways. I am not sure that decreasing the number of cars on the road would help the issue of speeding and following too closely on its own. Those habits take place regardless of vehicles parked on the street. Another issue is that some residents use their garage for purposes other than parking a vehicle. Part of this is, I think, a built-in problem with small lot sizes that make it difficult to use sheds or other workspaces in backyards. If there is some way to encourage residents to free up space, without negatively impacting other residents, I think that would solve some of the "parking problem." Finally, I do not notice that parking is an overall issue along the street. There are areas that are certainly denser than others, but Slate Canyon Dr. is not packed end-to-end with vehicles spilling into every driveway. As a resident who sometimes arrives home very late at night, I see plenty of spaces available. It seems parking permits are trying to remedy the issue of insufficient and poorly designed parking. It does not change behavior and creates other problems, such as parked cars moving to other areas and neighborhoods and potential issues when people come to visit. One of the biggest issues is that adequate parking was not provided within the newer communities that were built and with the restrictions of on street parking and driveway parking, the garage parking is not enough to cover even the occupancy potentially allowed in the communities. Other solutions should be discussed and examined before jumping to a permit system such as working with the HOAs to solve the parking problems within the communities, which would most likely resolve much if not all of the issue with parking on Slate Canyon Dr. And it also doesn’t “punish” those who have lived on Slate Canyon Dr much longer than the newer communities by making them now buy a permit to park or to have visitors over. The parking permits seem like a way to just get a “quick fix” without really looking at other options and doing additional research to see what the real issues are and to address those properly. Therefore, parking permits are not a good idea and other options should be explored more fully.

Cherilee Howden ½ to 1 mile

January 4, 2021, 9:52 AM

Name not shown ½ to 1 mile

January 4, 2021, 9:36 AM

Name not shown ¼ to ½ mile

January 4, 2021, 9:04 AM

Jess Brown ½ to 1 mile

January 4, 2021, 8:54 AM

Name not shown 1 to 2 miles

January 4, 2021, 8:40 AM

Name not shown ¼ to ½ mile

January 4, 2021, 8:40 AM

Name not shown ½ to 1 mile

January 4, 2021, 12:41 AM

Name not shown 1 to 2 miles

January 3, 2021, 10:11 PM

Name not shown 1 to 2 miles

January 3, 2021, 9:33 PM

Name not shown ½ to 1 mile

January 3, 2021, 9:15 PM

Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.