TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Adam Lindsay, ICMA-CM, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sheila Thomas-Ambat, PE, Public Services Director
Brian McGill, PE, PTOE, Assistant Public Services Director – Traffic Services
DATE: September 2, 2025
RE:Title
Resident Request for “No Parking” in Neighborhoods
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal IV: Be a highly desirable place to live, work, and recreate.
Executive Summary:
Council requested staff develop a process for “No Parking” down multi-use lanes, similar to the speed hump process. This request is the result of discussion from the June 2, 2025 Council Work Session, where staff provided the Bicycle Lane Ordinance Clarifications and Recommendations presentation.
Staff plan to return at a future Council Work Session with the process for residents to request “No Parking” along multi-use lanes, pending Council guidance based on the suggestions from the presentation.
Background:
History of “No Parking”:
- 08/23/2023 – Brunswick Road “No Parking” zone is enacted [Most recent “No Parking” zone]
- 06/02/2025 – Council requested staff develop a process for multi-use lanes “No Parking” requests
- 09/02/2025 – Staff presents “No Parking” information at Council Work Session
The City of Fayetteville does not have a defined policy for citizens to request “No Parking” in neighborhoods with multi-use lanes. To-date, for “No Parking” to be applied, Council members were required to request “No Parking” on behalf of their constituents. After reviewing the location, staff would make a recommendation and pursuant to any discussion, a “No Parking” zone could be enacted. The most recent “No Parking” zone was Brunswick Road on August 23, 2023.
The City documents “No Parking” zones as part of traffic schedule Number 9 – Parking Prohibited. The ordinance which authorizes the traffic schedules, Chapter 16, Article III, Section 16-61, Traffic Schedules Adopted; City Manager Authorized to Compile. is attached.
It was requested at the June 2, 2025 Council Work Session, prior to the presentation for Bicycle Lane Ordinance Clarifications and Recommendations, that staff provide a process for “No Parking” in multi-use lanes following a process similar to speed humps.
Issues/Analysis:
It was determined during the review and clarification surrounding bicycle lane ordinances that there is a desire by some communities to enact “No Parking” in multi-use lanes. Previously some communities may have used bicycle lanes as a de facto “No Parking” multi-use lane, however, with clarification of what is/is not permitted in bicycle lanes, defining a “No Parking” request process was requested.
Eight (8) municipalities were reviewed for their “No Parking” process. These municipalities are as follows: Apex, Concord, Durham, Greenville, High Point, Huntersville, Raleigh, Wilmington. Of those eight (8) municipalities, we identified the following:
• 6 of 8 municipalities have a formal “No Parking” policy.
• All municipalities allow “No Parking” to be requested based on safety concerns.
• 6 of 8 municipalities have some form of “No Parking” requests based on non-safety concerns/resident request.
o 1 municipality said non-safety-related requests only move forward if they come from HOA’s.
o 1 municipality’s program for non-safety-related requests requires 8 adjoining blocks in a neighborhood and a parking study.
o 1 municipality has stated signs are only placed when safety concerns arise or repeated ordinance violations are documented.
• 5 of 8 municipalities have signature thresholds, ranging from 51% to 100%
• 3 of 8 municipalities do not require Council approval to enact a “No Parking” zone/update their traffic schedule.
• All municipalities reviewed above 95,000 population (6 of 8) has a “Parking Coordinator” or “Parking Manager”.
From reviewing those municipalities formal policies, staff suggest the following:
• Provide residents a formal process to request “No Parking” for City streets with multi-use lanes, with community engagement like the speed hump process. Community engagement “like the speed hump process” means the use of mailers and ballots to determine resident approval for their “No Parking” zone.
• This process would only be applicable to City streets with multi-use lanes.
• “No Parking” restriction areas should be applied by block, from intersection to intersection. This avoids applying “No Parking” zones on a “house-by-house” basis, which can be cumbersome and difficult to manage and document appropriately.
• A time limit for “No Parking” requests should be established to prevent resident abuse of the system as well as prevent overburdening staff. To align with the speed hump request process, staff recommend 60 days for the mailer/ballot time period to be permitted, and then 6 months where additional requests will not be permitted. If one side of the road is requested and fails to meet the signature threshold, then no new requests would be enabled for one side or both sides of the street during the following 6 months.
• To match the speed hump neighborhood signature threshold, staff recommend a signature threshold of 70%. This threshold should be required for both sides of the street, regardless of which side(s) “No Parking” is applied to. The signature threshold should be applied to both sides equally. If “No Parking” is applied to only one side of the street, it is expected that visitors and residents may begin to use the other side of the street. Therefore, requiring both sides of the street to approve the “No Parking” zone should be required.
• For the signature thresholds, abandoned houses/vacant lots should be excluded from number of needed signatures, as they would not be affected by the “No Parking” zone. Should their status change, they may ask for staff to review and re-solicit approval of the “No Parking” zone. Staff will be required to review each “No Parking” zone request in person to verify the property is not abandoned, or a vacant lot.
• To match the speed hump request process, the owner, renter, tenant, etc. may sign. In the case of conflicting desires, the owner’s signature overrides the renter/tenant signature. Only one signature per residential unit or property is permitted; Multiple signatures for one address will only be counted as one signature.
• For multi-family properties, the units directly adjacent to the street receiving "No Parking" should be counted for the number of signatures needed.
Finally, staff have two main concerns regarding enacting a formal policy for “No Parking”.
• Without knowing resident interest in the program, the availability of funds and staff time is uncertain as the following is considered:
o Visiting proposed “No Parking” zones
o Preparing and sending mailers/ballots
o Validating the returned mailer/ballot signatures
o Updating Council with the necessary information to update the traffic schedule
o The cost of metal for sign fabrication and the purchase of signposts
• Staff becoming involved in neighborhood civil disputes. While staff are cognizant of residents desires for “No Parking” citing safety concerns and ordinance violations, disagreements between neighbors may escalate.
As this item was addressing the ability to request “No Parking” in multi-use lanes, staff will request Council’s direction and proceed as directed. If directed to create this new program, it will come back to Council for formal adoption.
Staff consider staff-initiated “No Parking” requests based on safety concerns to be independent from this agenda item but has identified the desire to establish clarity on the staff-initiated requests process with a future presentation.
Budget Impact:
This item discusses starting a new policy to address an unknown amount of resident demand for “No Parking” zones across City neighborhoods. The impact on the budget is unknown at this time.
Options:
This item is for informational purposes only and is for staff to receive guidance from Council.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
This item is for informational purposes only and is for staff to receive guidance from Council.
end
Attachments:
No Parking Presentation.pdf
16-61 Traffic Schedules.pdf
Other Municipalities Policies.pdf