HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2014 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session (2)Planning & Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
Friday, April 4, 2014
281 N. College Ave – Conference Room A
Web users: Documents for the Consent and Discussion items shown below can be
found online under the April 10, 2014, Hearing agenda.
12:00 – 2:00pm
Consent:
1.) P&Z Hearing Minutes – March 13, 2014
2.) Bella Vira, Filing 1, One-Year Extension of Final Plan, Vested Rights #14
(Wray)
Discussion:
3.) Fox Grove Overall Development Plan & Modifications of Standard (Holland)
4.) Lincoln Corridor Plan (Wray/Lewin)
2:00 – 5:00pm
Board Topics:
• 2014 Bicycle Master Plan (Greegor)
• TOD Parking Study (Lorson)
Policy and Legislation:
• 2014 Annual Land Use Code Revisions
A. Solar Energy Standards (Gloss)
B. Site Plan Advisory Review Process (Gloss)
C. Upcoming code revisions (Shepard)
1
1
Bicycle Master Plan
April 4, 2014
Planning and Zoning Board
Tessa Greegor, FC Bikes
2
2
Agenda
• Plan Background and Overview
• Public Engagement to Date
• Plan Vision and Goals
• Level of Comfort Network Analysis
• Bikeway Design
• Bike Share Business Plan
• Next Steps and Discussion
3
3
Fort Collins Cycling Today
• Platinum Bicycle Friendly Community (LAB)
• 170 miles of bike lanes
• 35 miles of paved trails
• Five E’s (FC Bikes Program and SRTS)
• 7.9% bicycle mode split – 6th highest in the
country
5.6%
9.8%
4.9%
9.2%
3.9%
8.6%
4.6%
10.8%
50.0%
Women Male
2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2012 Copenhagen
4
4
Plan Background
• Transportation Master Plan
implementation item
• 2008 Bike Plan and 2011 BSEP
• Paved Recreational Trails
Master Plan (2013)
• Evolving best practices for
bikeway engineering and safety
programs
• Next stop…Diamond Bicycle
Friendly Community!
5
5
Target Audience
6
6
Plan Elements
• Vision, goals, policy and
performance metrics
• State of Bicycling in Fort
Collins
– History and culture
– Existing plans, policies,
standards
– Bicycle network analysis
– Safety analysis
– Bicycle programs (4 E’s)
7
7
Plan Elements
• Bicycle Facilities Plan
– High priority areas
– Updated bikeway
network
– Infrastructure
design guidelines
– Wayfinding
– Bike Parking
8
8
Plan Elements
• Education, Encouragement, Evaluation and
Enforcement
• Implementation Plan
• Bike Share Feasibility Analysis and Business Plan
9
9
Project Timeline
Anticipated Plan adoption: Late 2014
10
10
Community Engagement to Date
• Online survey
• Community Bike Audits
• Community Issues
Forum
• Visioning Workshop
• Online WikiMap
• Citywide Projects Open
House
• Bike Plan Open House
11
11
Three Words to Describe Bicycling
Bicycling
Today
Future
12
12
Plan Vision
“The Bicycle Master Plan envisions Fort Collins as a
world-class city for bicycling. It is a city where people
of all ages and abilities have access to a comfortable,
safe, and connected network of bicycle facilities, and
where bicycling is an integral part of daily life and the
local cultural experience.”
13
13
Plan Goals
Connectivity
Safety
Ridership
Community
Equity
Comfort
Health
14
14
Bicycle Level of Comfort Analysis
Higher Stress Lower Stress
15
15
Bicycle Level of Comfort Analysis
16
16
Bicycle Level of
Comfort
Analysis
DRAFT
17
17
Bike Lanes & Parking
18
18
Bike Lanes at Intersections
19
19
Traffic Signals
20
20
Other On-Road Bikeways
21
21
Bicycle Boulevards
22
22
Bicycle Boulevards
23
23
Protected Bike Lanes
24
24
Protected Bike Lanes
25
25
Approach to Safety
• Promoting a culture of respect and safety among
all modes
• Safety-driven education, enforcement and
engineering recommendations
• Ongoing partnership with FCPD
– Bicycle Safety Education Diversion Program
– Enforcement and Education Campaign
– Distribution of lights, helmets and educational
materials
26
26
Bike Share Business Plan
What:
• Expanding Bike Library
• Self-checkout, public bikes
• Transit integration
• Phased system
Business Plan:
• Demand and cost analysis
• Feasibility
• System planning
• Implementation strategies
• Business model
27
27
Next Steps
• Synthesize public input received to date
• Draft recommendations
• Bike Share Business Plan (late April)
• Draft Plan (June)
• Boards and Commissions
• Targeted outreach events
• Public Open House (June/July)
• City Council Work Session #2 (August 26)
28
28
Discussion
29
29
Thank you!
Tessa Greegor, FC Bikes Program Manager
tgreegor@fcgov.com
Plan information:
www.fcgov.com/bikeplan
30
1
Fort Collins TOD Parking Study Update
April 4, 2014
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Problem Statement:
In 2013, as development activity increased in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns associated with the increasing number of multi-family and mixed-
use housing (with a student-oriented housing emphasis) projects. The concerns include a perceived lack of
development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand generated and, the potential for spill-over
parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been expressed about the need for parking structures to
accommodate the envisioned density.
Fueled by these concerns, the City Council adopted a “stop-gap” ordinance (Ord. 121, 2013) requiring minimum parking
in the TOD Overlay Zone. The new minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard with an alternative compliance
element that permits a parking impact study to show a reduction in parking demand. The ordinance will expire on
September 13, 2014, during which time the City, with the assistance of a parking consultant, are conducting a TOD
Overlay Zone Parking Study that will result in a comprehensive TOD parking strategy and corresponding regulations.
PROGRESS TO DATE
Planning Context – Building On Adopted Community Policy:
It is important to note that this planning work is building on work that has been vetted through significant community
discussion and is based upon adopted City policy. The City of Fort Collins has made significant investments in variety of
planning initiatives and has produced a series of inter-related plans that build on a common vision for the community.
These plans reflect years of adopted community policy. It is important that this planning effort builds on this solid
foundation of planning and is supportive of the policy decisions and direction that have been established and adopted
by the community, including key goals such as promoting compact infill development, reduction of VMT, and
development of multi-modal transportation options. Specifically, the following plans have contributed to the evaluation
of parking policy in the TOD Overlay Zone:
• City Plan
• Transportation Master Plan
• Parking Strategic Plan
• Midtown Plan
Best Practices Research and Literature Review
Another key goal of this study was to “explore a comprehensive approach to TOD Overlay Zone parking requirements.”
To meet this goal, staff has completed extensive research on a wide variety of topics related to parking requirements as
an element of municipal zoning codes. This includes a surprisingly wide range of issues and topics related to community
access management, development policies and transportation demand management to name just a few.
31
2
Themes for TOD Parking Best Practices :
Transit/TOD Supportive Policies, Strategies & Programs
Carsharing
Transit Friendly Parking Design
Transit Incentive Programs
Annual Passes
Visitor Programs
Walkability and Wayfinding
Parking Requirements: Changing Parking Regulations on Development
Storage Parking Strategies
Reduction or Elimination of Parking Requirements
Developing TOD Friendly Parking Requirements
Parking Maximums
Shared Parking
Changing the Price of Parking
On-street Parking Pricing
Variable Rate Parking Pricing
Coordinated Off-street and On-street Pricing
Unbundled Parking
Parking Cash-Out
Parking Management Strategies, Programs and Technology
Parking Payment Technology
Parking Database
Real-time Parking Information
Parking Benefit Districts
Old Pasadena Business Improvement District
Lloyd District Meter District (Portland) Downtown Tempe Community Boulder Downtown and University Hill Management
District
Parking Financing
Fee-In-Lieu
Parking/Development Impact Fees
Risk Fund
Tax Exemptions and Variable Rate Tax
TIF
Peer Cities Research
In addition to researching best practices from around the country, the project scope also calls for a review of peer cities
that have experienced the transition to a fully functional TOD district. This research will provide a range of specific
strategies developed by other communities.
Examples Best Practices from Peer City Research:
• Arlington County, Virginia – Mobility Lab/Aggressive Commute Services
• Tempe – District Management of Private Parking Assets
32
3
• City of Miami Beach – Parking Impact Fees
• City of Seattle DOT - Downtown Seattle Parking Database and Unbundled Parking and Market Driven Parking
Cashout
• City of Eugene – Parking Policies along a BRT Corridor
• City of Boulder – Updates to their TDM Toolkit Approach
Data Collection
Existing data from the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3):
Parking Services has performed inventory and occupancy counts in response to complaints about parking near the
Summit student housing development.
When: The data were collected on October 28, 2013 at 5:45 pm, November 6 at 7:30, November 11 at 5:30 and
November 19 at 6:00 pm.
Where: The streets included in the analysis were
• Remington from Parker to Spring Park Drive
• Parker between College and Remington
• Stuart between College and Remington
• Spring Park Drive between College and Remington
Results:
• Total of 124 spaces in this area
• The occupancy counts on the four days were 55, 59, 62, and 57 respectively.
• The max occupancy rate was 50%
• Average occupancy rate was 47%
• Highest occupancy on any one block – 15 out of 22 on Parker on 11/19, for occupancy rate of 68%
• Lowest occupancy on any one block – 5 out of 13 on Stuart on 11/19 for occupancy rate of 38%
Conclusion: the occupancy rates in the area are insufficient to justify the Residential Parking Permit Program at this time
(as a general guideline, the City needs approximately 60% occupancy or greater on a consistent basis to justify the RP3).
TOD Parking Data Collection:
City Staff is collecting parking data at multi-family and mixed-use development sites within the TOD Overlay Zone. The
sites are derived from the existing developments that were used to evaluate the temporary ordinance.
• As part of this data collection effort, parking counts were collected over the CSU Spring Break to assess impacts
without the presence of CSU students (utilization levels well below problem levels).
• Additional counts planned over the next few weeks.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES
The extensive public engagement plan for the TOD Parking Study includes outreach to targeted stakeholders, such as the
development and design community, real-estate professionals, property and business owners, organized citizen and
neighborhood groups, the public at large, and City boards.
33
4
WHAT WE’VE HEARD / KEY THEMES (From public outreach to date)
• It is important to identify strategies that will address both current and future needs. It is challenging to make
long-term policy decisions on parking requirements when the MAX isn’t online yet. Current parking issues
(Downtown/around CSU campus) may not be the same issues that exist once MAX comes online.
• Providing car storage is a critical need, both on and off the CSU campus.
• "Colorado is considered part of the ‘west' and supporting access to an active lifestyle is part of our culture"
• 93% of Board of Realtor (BOR) survey respondents said owning a car was “Important”; 67% said “Very
Important”
• Current state of parking:
o Midtown/Mason Corridor: There is plenty of parking in Midtown, except around a few projects like the
Summit. 61% of BOR survey respondents said that there was the “right amount of parking” around
buildings and businesses. However, survey respondents also said that parking was one of the top two
obstacles to the Mason Corridor’s success (next to building heights).
o Downtown: Very busy on-street but there is adequate off-street parking except for maybe once or twice
a year.
o CSU Campus Area: “Always congested”; 62% of BOR survey respondents said there was “not enough
parking” around CSU.
o Residential: Spillover into neighborhoods continues to be an issue. Residents feel that the RP3 program
is an unfair imposition/externalization of developer responsibility.
• Tailored parking supply solutions by project, zone and/or “sub area" are generally supported.
• Recommendations of this study can’t be a “one size fits all solution”. Identifying solutions on a case-by-case
basis seems to be supported, however careful consideration should be shown to avoid “cutting things up into
pieces” in terms of zoning and sub areas.
• Public/Private Partnerships are critical to the Mason Corridor’s success. There is wide-spread consensus that
identifying opportunities for increased Public/Private Partnerships (i.e., shared parking, financing parking
structures) will be vital to achieving the City's increased development, quality of life and a ease of access in the
Midtown/Mason Corridor/TOD area.
• Implement targeted areas of paid on-street parking, perhaps as a pilot. Implementing a paid parking solution
came up multiple times throughout a variety of different stakeholder groups.
• “The most convenient parking should be paid parking”
• Many reported being unsure why parking in a garage costs money but on-street parking is free
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT / WHAT DIRECTION WE ARE HEADED
The following alternatives were identified in the overview and scope of the project. The City's consultant, Kimley-Horn
Associates, has elaborated on the alternatives based on best practices and peer city review that best fit Fort Collins.
34
5
Alternative 1: No changes
o Issues being considered:
▪ It may be premature to evaluate parking standards for the Transit-Oriented Development
Overlay Zone prior to operational transit (MAX) for which the standards were created to
complement.
▪ Existing “temporary” standards will limit over-building of parking to some degree, however,
costs for parking are high, and particularly so for structured parking where the life-cycle of a
parking structure is 50 – 75 years.
▪ The original TOD Overlay Zone was developed per Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
requirements of New Starts/Small Starts grant funding program for the MAX BRT system. FTA
may be opposed to the parking standards being “watered down” – as the focus of the parking
management strategy – is to promote use of BRT. The revised parking management strategy
was a requirement for City of Fort Collins to receive FTA approval for MAX funding. Could it
affect on-going or future FTA funding if the parking requirement changes are made permanent?
▪ Does a lack of revisions to our interim parking standards change our decision making going
forward?
Alternative 2: Minimum Requirement with Alternative Compliance
o Issues being considered:
▪ Existing “temporary” standards will limit over-building of parking to some degree.
▪ If developers propose alternatives, those options could be vetted through a parking impact
study.
▪ Storage parking strategies are being assessed as an alternative compliance option.
▪ Regarding student housing issues, leverage the fact that CSU already has a bus pass program
with Transfort. The City could monitor increases in transit usage and related traffic and parking
demand impacts on an on-going basis and identify opportunities to collaborate with CSU on
common parking goals.
▪ Through this process, the City could develop a range of developer and/or employer trip
reduction programs.
▪ Minimum requirements could vary based on land use.
Alternative 3: Parking Impact Study
o Issues being considered:
▪ For development projects of a certain size, a required “parking impact study” could provide
some protection for adjacent neighborhoods and provide developers with a process for
proposing or assessing alternatives.
▪ Shared parking strategies between properties should be encouraged.
▪ Inclusion of a parking study as a minimum submittal requirement will add cost and complexity
to the development review process.
35
6
Alternative 4: Dynamic Parking Requirement
o Issues being considered:
▪ Staff is considering how parking standards can be tied to trip generation rates. A key goal of the
TOD Overlay Zone was not to allow parking supply to be overbuilt. The fact that the MAX is not
yet in place is an issue, however, we should not lose sight of the goal that parking should be
sized based on the vision for the future not what is needed today before the Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) opens.
▪ The City and CSU both have access to the Park+ parking demand modeling software. This could
be expanded and used as an on-going tool in the Development Review Process (as is currently
being done in the City of Beverly Hills)
▪ As the opportunities for multi-modal transportation options expands, parking requirements
could be more dynamic, adapting to specific criteria on an aggregate or area-specific basis.
Alternative 5: Parking Fees
o Issues being considered:
▪ Fee-in-Lieu programs have been reviewed and have several significant drawbacks.
▪ Parking Impact Fees are an option that may offer more benefits and flexibility. Staff is continuing
the assessment of this option.
▪ Other approaches to parking infrastructure development (to support the larger TOD corridor
development goals) are being reviewed. The most options that appear most viable include:
• Development or Parking Impact Fees
• Paid on-street parking
o A paid parking pilot program on Lake Street (adjacent to CSU which already has
paid parking) could be a way to introduce paid parking on a limited basis.
• A parking tax measure
Alternative 6: Structured Parking Strategies
o Issues being considered
▪ Public/private parking partnerships for the creation of public parking structures, on-site and off-
site parking for private development, and as an economic development tool:
• CSU would consider a shared-use garage along the MAX line between Pitkin and Lake
Streets
• An alternative site nearer to Drake may be an option
▪ Consider long term “return on investment strategies”; in particular consider data regarding land
value and potential tax generation rates for different types of development patterns. Parking
investment can be a tool to support and encourage the level of development density in the TOD
corridor. It can be viewed as an “investment” as opposed to an incentive. There needs to be a
balance between developer-required investment and public investment. A parking investment
and infrastructure funding strategy is needed.
36
7
Alternative 7: Other Strategies
o Issues being considered:
▪ Focus on “multi-modal strategies”. Increase opportunities for improved walkability and urban
design, active transportation, and that address trends in automobile ownership patterns, etc. as
a way to reduce parking demand.
▪ One of the goals of the original TOD overlay zone was to incentivize structured parking by
allowing more density which, in turn, provides an incentive for more affordable housing. How
can new approaches further promote and reinforce these goals?
▪ Consider the goals and role of neighborhood parking permit programs. This will involve
balancing the use of public rights of way, promoting long-term planning goals, being sensitive to
the needs of neighborhoods and property owners and sustaining the high quality of life that
citizens expect in Fort Collins.
▪ Consider the data regarding travel trends related to younger and future generations – people of
all ages in the future will not be choosing to live or travel the way that we have in the past.
How do we best incorporate these trends into our policy recommendations?
▪ The staff is evaluating strategies such as Parking Districts and/or district management strategies
that leverage parking management as a tool to achieve larger district/area development and
management goals.
▪ A central conflict in the parking analysis exists between long-range policies that promote the
aggressive land-use, transportation and climate action goals, found in City Plan, and the
Transportation Master Plan versus short-term parking needs based on present demand. The
TOD parking study should give us direction on any incremental approaches that could balance
long-term goals with short and mid-term needs
▪ Off-site parking storage at CSU is not being considered at the present time, but should be
revisited on a regular basis.
▪ The development of an “Economic Development Oriented Parking Policy” should be considered.
Such a policy was developed for the City of Tempe, AZ.
▪ Actively identify opportunities for public/private partnerships (i.e., shared parking, joint
financing of new facilities, etc.). A concept referred to as the “Business Development Score Card
Strategy” will be introduced.
Alternative 8: Combination of Alternatives 1 - 7
NEXT STEPS - SCHEDULE
• March – April 2014
o Finalize public outreach
o Summarize and incorporate input from public outreach and feedback from Boards and Council
o April 4 – P&Z Work session
o Finalize parking data collection efforts
o Begin refinement of preliminary recommendations. Present to boards and council for input/direction
37
8
• May – June 2014
o May 8 – Planning and Zoning Board: presentation of results and alternatives
o May 12 – Parking Advisory Board: presentation of results and alternatives
o May 27 – City Council Work Session: presentation of results and alternatives
o Refinement of draft report and recommendations based on input from boards and council
o Submission of draft report
• July – August 2014
o Adoption: Planning and Zoning Board
o Adoption: City Council
o Proposed Land Use Code Ordinance to P&Z and City Council
• September – October
o Update the Parking Plan with information and recommendations from the TOD Overlay Parking Study.
(City Staff Only)
Report Organizing Strategy – Information Flow
→Problem Statement
→Planning Context
→Community Policy Direction / Values
→Best Practices Research / Peer Cities Review
→Community Engagement/Stakeholder Input
→Localized Development Data Collection / Parking Utilization
→Special Issues (Ex: Timing of the MAX)
→Alternatives Considered
→Recommendations
38
39 1
40 2
41 3
42 4
43 5
44 6
45 7
46 8
47 9
10 48
11 49
12 50
13 51
14 52
15 53
16 54
17 55
18 56
19 57
20 58
21 59
22 60
23 61
24 62
25 63
26 64
27 65
28 66
29 67
30 68
31 69
32 70
33 71
34 72
35 73
36 74
37 75
38 76
39 77
40 78
41 79
42 80
43 81
44 82
45 83
46 84
47 85
48 86
49 87
50 88
51 89
52 90