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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.