HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/20/2013 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2013, AMENDINGDATE: August 20, 2013
STAFF: Seth Lorson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 35
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2013, Amending Section 3.2.2(k) of the Land Use Code Regarding Minimum
Parking Requirements in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to propose minimum parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in the
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
At the July 9, 2013 Joint Work Session of City Council and Planning and Zoning Board, direction was given to
implement interim minimum parking requirements for multi-family dwellings in the TOD Overlay Zone, while
maintaining that the long-term vision for the TOD should stay intact. At the August 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing, the Board recommended revising the Land Use Code (LUC) to require minimum ratio of 60% - 70% parking
spaces to the proposed number of bedrooms, a provision to meet the standard through alternative compliance, and
a one year sunset in which time a TOD Parking Plan will be created. Accordingly, the City Council will need to select
the ratio and fill in the blank on page 2 of the Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2006, the TOD Overlay Zone was added to the City of Fort Collins LUC, creating the map and the removal of
minimum parking requirements to encourage a more urban form of development and allow market conditions to
provide adequate parking. It was further amended in 2007 addressing mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented design.
Attached to this AIS (with the P&Z staff report) is a TOD memorandum dated May 10, 2013 that provides an in depth
discussion of the TOD formation and parking analysis.
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for concentrated higher density
housing and mixed-use development supported by investment in infrastructure including high-frequency transit,
streetscape and urban design improvements, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking
requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon the full implementation of
these infrastructure investments. While progress is being made on those investments, the full system is not yet in
place. In the meantime, the limited parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause
spillover parking into existing neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the demand for parking capacity,
and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could be implemented:
Parking Capacity
• Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone. (Proposed with this agenda item)
• Require a Parking Analysis to determine parking demand as identified in the Parking Plan. (Proposed with
this agenda item, to be expanded with consultant input)
• Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure as recommended in the
Midtown Plan. (Could be included with parking fee discussion)
• Require off-site parking storage. (Proposed as possible mitigation per alternative compliance)
• Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan. (To be discussed at
November 26 Work Session)
August 20, 2013 -2- ITEM 35
Spillover Parking
• Create a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). (Ordinance No.102, 2013 was adopted by City
Council on First Reading on July 16, 2013 and is considered on Second Reading on August 20)
• Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the Parking Plan and already
implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Parking Demand
• Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of bus passes, enhanced bike
facilities, implement car share and bike share programs). (Proposed with this agenda item)
• Implement high-frequency transit. (In process)
• Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and commercial services.
(Being discussed in Midtown Plan)
Land Use Code
Staff analyzed eleven multi-family development projects in the TOD Overlay Zone (see attached) and found that, on
average, they provided a ratio of 57% parking spaces to bedrooms. If these same projects were to be developed
outside the TOD Overlay Zone, subject to existing minimum parking requirements, they would have been required to
provide an average ratio of 89% parking spaces to bedrooms. Staff averaged these two numbers, representing the
current market ratio being proposed with development and the Land Use Code’s minimum requirement for multi-family
dwellings, which resulted in ratio of 73% parking spaces to bedrooms. Thus, staff recommended to the Planning and
Zoning Board (P&Z) a ratio of 70% parking spaces to bedrooms.
Subsequent to publishing the P&Z staff report, additional analysis has been done on the same projects in the TOD
Overlay Zone with outlier percentages removed in an attempt to get a better indication of what the market is providing
(see attached spreadsheet). With the outliers removed (The Summit [32.1%], Ram’s Crossing K2 [33.6%], and Penny
Flats [92.9%]), the average ratio is 58.5% parking spaces to bedrooms. This ratio was considered by the P&Z Board
and they recommended a ratio of 60% - 70% parking spaces to bedrooms.
The proposed alternative compliance section is premised on promoting the goals of the TOD Overlay Zone - such as
concentrated higher density residential development, high-frequency transit, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle
facilities - without compromising compatibility with existing neighborhoods in terms of excessive spillover parking. In
order to request alternative compliance, a Parking Analysis is required to be submitted that will provide an in-depth
analysis of parking demands created by the proposed development and mitigation measures taken to reduce demands
for on-site parking. The Parking Analysis criteria are a result of preliminary implementation work done by staff for the
Fort Collins Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods. However, these proposed criteria are a
temporary solution to expire in one year. In which time we plan to procure an expert consultant to expand the Parking
Plan to the TOD Overlay to create a comprehensive approach to parking requirements. Staff has received a proposal
from Kimley-Horn and Associates to develop this plan.
Parking Plan
Action Item #7 of the Parking Plan, adopted by Council on January 15, 2013, calls for an amendment to the
requirements for Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) to require that TISs for development proposals include an
assessment of parking impacts in Fort Collins.
Policy 6.4 – Review of New Development Parking Impacts
New development will be systematically evaluated for its impact on Downtown parking within a Transportation Impact
Study. The evaluation will include information about expected parking generation for new uses, parking created or lost,
demand reduction measures, impacts to public parking, anticipated impacts to public parking, anticipated spillover
effects, and any other information relevant to changes in parking demand and supply.
Parking Fee Discussion
• Planning Development and Transportation (PDT) and Finance staff have been evaluating the potential of
creating a parking impact fee that would off-set impact created by utilization of public parking; and/or creating
August 20, 2013 -3- ITEM 35
a parking fee-in-lieu as a mechanism to permit lowered parking ratios that would pay into facilities that absorb
some of the parking demand generated by a development. The parking fee discussion is tentatively scheduled
for Council Finance Committee on October 21, 2013 and Council Work Session on November 26, 2013.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The TOD Overlay Zone has not had minimum parking requirements since 2006. The removal of minimum parking
requirements was implemented, in part, to incentivize infill and redevelopment in challenging locations and conditions.
This incentive may be reduced with this proposal to require minimum parking. Additional analysis of financial and
economic impacts is expected with the forthcoming parking plan/study.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning and Zoning Board
Recommendation #1:
At the August 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board voted 4 – 2 to recommend approval of an
ordinance requiring a minimum ratio of 60% – 70% parking spaces to bedrooms for multi-family housing in the TOD
Overlay Zone. The Board was divided on whether 60% or 70% was an appropriate minimum ratio, thus the
recommendation of a range with a final ratio to be decided by City Council. During deliberation two board members
felt both ratios were too high and other members felt it was too low. However, the Board did recommend approval of
the alternative compliance element and the one year sunset clause in the ordinance.
Recommendation #2:
Additionally, the Board recommended funding for a comprehensive study/plan and public outreach for overall parking
issues affecting the TOD Overlay Zone to be completed within the next year before the ordinance expires. It
recommended that a high priority be placed on this study/plan worthy of “emergency funding” that would develop
necessary tools to address parking issues and also restate the benefits of transit-oriented development.
Discussion:
The Board debated various perspectives expressing concern about neighborhood character and upholding the vision
for transit-oriented development and infill in City Plan. Some Boardmembers felt that the lack of parking minimums
may work in communities that already have fully operational public transit systems, but the MAX has not yet started
operating so Fort Collins still needs parking minimums. They also felt that people will still have vehicles regardless of
whether they will use them on a daily basis and therefore there will still be a need for auto storage.
Other Boardmembers felt that the role of the Board is to implement City Plan which calls for a compact, transit-oriented
community core; and that implementation of a 70% parking ratio is moving in the opposite direction from this vision.
And, if this is the direction we are going to go, it should be a comprehensive plan conversation. The Board further
discussed how to get developers to start thinking creatively to solve parking problems that does not involve excessive
spillover or expansive surface parking.
The Board agreed that the city is in a time of growth in which urban growth is struggling with neighborhood character.
And, it is challenging to know which comes first: higher density or the high frequency transit system to serve it.
Because conversely, the high frequency transit system needs the high density residential to be successful. Thus, the
Board agreed that a comprehensive study of parking issues and tools needs to be prioritized in order to protect
neighborhoods and realize the city’s vision for the future.
Parking Advisory Board
The Parking Advisory Board has been established, but its members will be appointed on August 20, 2013, and
therefore, has not had an opportunity to review the proposal.
August 20, 2013 -4- ITEM 35
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report and Attachments
2. Analysis of Parking in the TOD Overlay
3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 8, 2013
4. Powerpoint Presentation
1
PROJECT: Parking Minimums in the TOD Overlay Zone
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
At the July 9 Joint Work Session of City Council and Planning and Zoning Board, the lack
of a minimum parking requirement for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone was identified as an issue. More specifically, they
discussed whether the standards in the Land Use Code (LUC) are providing adequate
capacity for the parking demand being generated by multi-family development and how it
relates to the City’s vision for the TOD Overlay Zone and the Mason Corridor. The
discussion formulated direction to implement minimum parking requirements for the TOD
Overlay Zone but maintained that the vision for the TOD should stay intact. Staff is
recommending revising the LUC to require minimum ratio of 70% parking spaces to the
proposed number of bedrooms and a provision to meet the standard through alternative
compliance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
Problem Statement
The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for
concentrated higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment
in infrastructure including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design
improvements, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking
requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised
upon the full implementation of these infrastructure investments. While progress is being
made on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited
parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause
spillover parking into existing neighborhoods.
To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the
demand for parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could be
implemented:
Parking Capacity
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
ATTACHMENT 1
2
• Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone. (Proposed with
this report)
• Require a Parking Analysis to determine parking demand as identified in the
Parking Plan. (Proposed with this report, to be expanded with consultant input)
• Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure
as recommended in the Midtown Plan. (Could be included with parking fee
discussion)
• Require off-site parking storage. (Proposed as possible mitigation)
• Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan.
(To be discussed at November 26 Work Session)
Spillover Parking
• Create a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). (Ordinance adopted by City
Council on first reading at July 16, 2013 hearing)
• Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the
Parking Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood.
Parking Demand
• Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of
bus passes, enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share programs).
(Proposed with this report)
• Implement high-frequency transit. (In process)
• Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and
commercial services. (Being discussed in Midtown Plan)
Land Use Code
Staff analyzed eleven multi-family development projects in the TOD Overlay Zone (see
attached) and found that, on average, they provided a ratio of 57% parking spaces to
bedrooms. If these same projects were to be developed outside the TOD Overlay Zone,
subject to existing minimum parking requirements, they would have been required to
provide an average ratio of 89% parking spaces to bedrooms. Staff averaged these two
numbers, representing the current market ratio being proposed with development and the
Land Use Code’s minimum requirement for multi-family dwellings, which resulted in ratio
of 73% parking spaces to bedrooms. Thus, staff is recommending a ratio of 70% parking
spaces to bedrooms.
The proposed alternative compliance section is premised on promoting the goals of the
TOD Overlay Zone - such as concentrated higher density residential development, high-
frequency transit, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities - without compromising
compatibility with existing neighborhoods in terms of excessive spillover parking. In order
to request alternative compliance, a Parking Analysis is required to be submitted that will
provide an in-depth analysis of parking demands created by the proposed development and
mitigation measures taken to reduce demands for on-site parking. The Parking Analysis
criteria are a result of preliminary implementation work done by staff for the Fort Collins
Parking Plan. However, these proposed criteria are a temporary solution until we can
procure an expert consultant to assist in writing the full criteria that will amend the chapter
3
4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) to include a Parking
Analysis within the requirements for a Transportation Impact Study (TIS). Staff has
received a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates to develop these criteria.
LUC Amendment
Section 3.2.2
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional
uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards
below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall
be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2.0
Four and above 3.0
* Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking
structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide
direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum
requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit
occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate
or purchase price).
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking
requirements provide a minimum number of parking spaces in an amount equal
to or greater than 70% of the number of proposed bedrooms in the development.
2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision
maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum
required in the TOD Overlay Zone per Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be
substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section.
(a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set
forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be
accompanied by a Parking Analysis.
(b) Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall consist of the following:
4
(1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project size, location,
employees, units, and/or bedrooms. To the extent reasonably feasible,
comparable local and regional parking demand rates for similar uses
shall be utilized together with the average demand rates for similar
facilities compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
(2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall be determined
based on Transportation Impact Study analysis.
(3) Parking mitigation measures beyond non-vehicular mode usage and
support shall be identified and included in the analysis. Specific
measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include, but are not
limited to:
a. Shared parking.
b. Off-site parking.
c. Parking pricing.
d. Transit pass program.
e. Unbundling the leasing cost of parking spaces from residential
units for both enclosed and surface parking.
f. Flexible work hours and telecommuting.
g. Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car sharing, shuttle
services.
h. Enhancements that encourage bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
i. Other verifiable parking demand reduction measures.
(4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be removed as
part of the project, if any, shall be identified.
(5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking locations;
surplus/deficit shall be identified.
(c) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must
first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this
Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would
a plan which complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the
request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it
accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into
account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Analysis together
with the proposed plan’s compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in
terms of potential spillover parking.*
*This language has not had a final review by Legal Staff and therefore is subject to
change.
Parking Plan
The Parking Plan, adopted by Council on January 15, 2013, action item #7 calls for an
amendment to the requirements for Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) to require that
TISs for development proposals include an assessment of parking impacts in Fort Collins.
5
Policy 6.4 – Review of New Development Parking Impacts
New development will be systematically evaluated for its impact on Downtown parking
within a Transportation Impact Study. The evaluation will include information about
expected parking generation for new uses, parking created or lost, demand reduction
measures, impacts to public parking, anticipated impacts to public parking, anticipated
spillover effects, and any other information relevant to changes in parking demand and
supply.
Parking Fee Discussion
Planning Development and Transportation (PDT) and Finance staff have been discussing
the potential of creating a parking impact fee that would off-set impact created by
utilization of public parking; and/or creating a parking fee-in-lieu as a mechanism to permit
lowered parking ratios that would pay into facilities that absorb some of the parking
demand generated by a development. The parking fee discussion is scheduled for Council
Fee Committee on October 21, 2013 and Council Work Session on November 26, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance (Forthcoming)
2. TOD Project Analysis Spreadsheet
3. TOD Parking Study, May 10, 2013
Projects in the TOD Overlay
Zone
Bedrooms Parking Provided
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to Bedrooms
Parking Required If
Outside TOD
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to Bedrooms
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 78.3% 42 91%
Flats at the Oval 98 57 58.2% 83 85%
Penny Flats 280 260 92.9% 255 91%
Pura Vida Place 100 49 49.0% 90 90%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 47.1% 13 76%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 55.6% 6 67%
Ram's Crossing K2 140 47 33.6% 191 136%
The Summit (Choice Center)* 676 217 32.1% 471 70%
Legacy Senior Apts* 112 52 46.4% 118 105%
District at Campus West* 658 461 70.1% 431 66%
Carriage House Apts* 89 58 65.2% 94 106%
Average 57.1% Average 89%
*under construction
Parking Analysis of Projects in the Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
Average of Ratio of Parking Provided, and
Ratio of Parking Required if Outside the
TOD
73.2%
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study
P&Z Board Work Session Discussion Paper
May 10, 2013
I. Purpose of the Discussion
Planning and Zoning Board members requested a Work Session discussion of the parking
impacts of multi-family projects within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone -
TOD is characterized by higher-density mixed-use development within walking distance of a
transit station supported by features to enhance transit ridership and walkability. This paper
provides background and information of the creation of the TOD and preliminary research on
parking impacts of TOD projects and research from other communities. The intent is to facilitate
a Board discussion and to gain an understanding of the Board’s concerns.
II. Overview and Summary
The vision supporting TOD is articulated in City Plan, the Transportation Master Plan,
Mason Street Transportation Corridor Master Plan, and other related plans. An element
of the community vision speaks to inward revitalization supported by a robust transit
network.
The implementation of TOD is still in its infancy. Many of the critical TOD components,
particularly a high-frequency transit network, are not yet in place. As a result, Fort Collins
does not yet have significant experience with fully-implemented TOD projects sufficient
to fully gauge benefits and impacts.
P&Z and City Council created compatibility standards allowing the decision maker to
require additional parking, and in the fall of 2012 re-confirmed the suitability of the TOD
boundary.
The parking inventory and utilization survey shows that the area north of Laurel Street is
heavily utilized at all times of the day. Other areas have lower parking utilization and on-
street parking capacity is not currently an issue.
There are broader issues of parking around CSU linked to commuter travel related but
separate from multi-family parking demands. North of Laurel Street, parking by
commuters exacerbates an already tight parking supply. Several possible solutions to
parking issues are identified in the Parking Plan.
III. Summary of Transit Oriented Development Overlay District
Standards
The Land Use Code contains three elements directly referencing Transit Oriented Development:
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
2
1. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone definition (Definitions 5.1.2, Article 5
page 45) represented by a map (see Attachment 1). The map includes Downtown, an
area surrounding the CSU Main Campus, and south along College Avenue to Fossil
Creek Parkway.
2. Parking Compatibility (Section 3.5.1(J) page 92): This section allows additional parking
to be required by the decision maker to ensure compatibility with existing
neighborhoods.
3. Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
(Division 3.10, Article 3 page 195): Applies to development within the TOD Overlay Zone
south of Prospect. These standards encourage land uses, densities, and design that
support attractive public spaces, transit and other alternative transportation.
4. Parking Lots – Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use (Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), Article 3 page 30): Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings
within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum
parking requirements.
IV. Background
City Plan Vision and Policies Related to TOD
City Plan Vision Statement (in part):
In Fort Collins, development and growth are focused within the community’s designated Growth
Management Area in order to protect sensitive natural resources and the regional landscape
setting, encourage infill and redevelopment (inward revitalization), and make the most efficient
use of public infrastructure. By increasing the overall average density of the city, the community’s
neighborhoods will foster efficient land use, support a mix of housing types, increase efficiency of
public utilities, streets, facilities, and services, and accommodate multiple modes of travel
(including vehicle, bus, bike, and walking)… While earlier versions of City Plan focused largely on
new development, the 2010 City Plan continues to shift the focus toward redevelopment and infill
development. These activities are increasing as the remaining vacant lands within the
community’s Growth Management Area build out. The Targeted Redevelopment Areas Map
identifies possible locations for future infill and redevelopment activities. Many of the Targeted
Redevelopment Areas are designated as activity centers or areas where higher intensity
development is encouraged and expected to occur to support existing and future transit.
Specific City Plan Policies:
Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment
Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots
To support transit use and a more pedestrian-friendly environment, reduce land devoted to
surface parking lots as infill and redevelopment occur. Adhere to maximum parking ratios
for commercial uses and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for transit-
supportive uses. Encourage alternatives such as structured parking, angled or parallel on-
street parking, shared parking, and others as appropriate.
Policy T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design
Implement and integrate Transit Supportive Design strategies with respect to new and infill
development opportunities along Enhanced Travel Corridors.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
3
Transportation Master Plan Policies:
Transportation policies are same as those contained within City Plan.
Mason Street Transportation Corridor Master Plan (2000) Next Steps - Regulatory actions:
Establish Enhanced Development Areas, possibly through creation of an overlay zone.
Reduce residential parking requirements in development areas proximate to transit
stops/stations.
Encourage more residential development in the corridor.
Modify development code to incorporate requirements for community amenities.
Streamline City development process.
Increase signage allowance on rear of buildings.
Formation and Approval of the TOD Overlay Zone
The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone was added to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code in 2006 and further amended in 2007. The TOD zone addresses land use,
density, height and compatibility for a specific geographic zone, as shown in Attachment 1.
TOD Overlay Zone: Map, Definition, Parking, and Compatibility (Ordinance No. 192, 2006)
Hearing Dates:
11/16/06 – P&Z
12/5/06 – CC 1st Reading
12/19/06 – CC 2nd Reading
Staff Presentation Topics:
Incentivize redevelopment in proximity to high activity centers and alternative
transportation.
Identified in City Plan as targeted infill and redevelopment areas.
Financial challenges and physical site constraints make providing minimum parking
difficult.
Existing parking minimums are closer related to green-field as opposed to
redevelopment standards. Parking is expected to be required but as a function of market
conditions.
The city could receive an FTA grant for the Mason Corridor and MAX if it shows a true
commitment to multi-modal development and transit-oriented design.
P&Z Discussion – November 16, 2006: Approved 6 - 0
There were no members of the public present to comment on the creation of the TOD
Overlay.
One board member felt the boundary went too far to the west, while another board
member felt it didn’t go far enough. The justification was that the transit line through
Campus West is well traveled.
The Chair asked what research supports eliminating parking instead of reducing
minimums. Staff worked with developers and implemented a code revision allowing
additional parking to be required in the compatibility section (3.5.1). Also, an FTA grant
for the MAX requires commitment to TOD and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The
community has been working toward this for a long time and is ready to take the bold
next step that is supported by policies for infill and redevelopment within our fixed
Growth Management Area (GMA).
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
4
The Chair questioned zero parking in the Myrtle/Meldrum area and discussed the need
to utilize the neighborhood compatibility criteria (permitting the decision-maker to require
additional parking) and ensured staff was willing to do that.
Is there multi-family zoning adjacent to the TOD boundary where one side will have
parking and the other (TOD) will not? Staff has adjusted the boundary accordingly to
avoid such a conflict.
City Council Discussion 1st Reading – December 5, 2006: Approved 5 – 2
No discussion occurred regarding the TOD Overlay Zone. Other LUC topics were
discussed with this ordinance that lead to a split vote.
City Council Discussion 2nd Reading – December 19, 2006: Approved 5 – 2
No discussion occurred regarding the TOD Overlay Zone. Other LUC topics were
discussed with this ordinance that lead to a split vote.
TOD Overlay Zone: Development Standards (Ordinance No. 078, 2007)
Hearing Dates:
5/17/07 – P&Z
6/5/07 – CC 1st Reading
6/19/07 – CC 2nd Reading
Staff Presentation Topics:
Development pattern supports compact urban growth, infill, redevelopment, and multi-
modal transportation.
It is primarily a commercial area.
Remove “greenfield-type” standards from TOD Overlay.
Federal grant application with the FTA.
Ingredients for successful transit-oriented development (which can also be thought of for
successful MAX)
o Compact development (density)
o High-quality, active, and safe streetscapes
o Diversity of uses (especially mixed-use buildings)
o District orientation
o Civic spaces
Performance based incentives for community objectives
o Compact development aimed at residential and employment
o Affordable housing (height incentives)
o Structured parking (height incentives)
o Compatibility with neighborhoods
Encourage pedestrian-orientation without compromising the commercial nature of the
area and not try to “re-create” downtown.
Public outreach with various community, civic, and business groups informed the
proposed ordinance.
P&Z Discussion – May 17, 2007: Approved 7 - 0
The chair asked about parking structure standards, transparency requirements, and the
material and colors section.
City Council Discussion 1st Reading – June 5, 2007: Approved 7 – 0
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
5
A councilmember asked why changing parking standards for mixed-use dwellings is a
good idea.
A councilmember asked why parking on the side of building would not be allowed.
o He requested that staff address this in writing on second reading.
City Council Discussion 2nd Reading – June 19, 2007: Approved 7 – 0 (Consent)
Written response: The intent was to eliminate “greenfield-based” parking requirements
for multi-family and mixed-use is essentially multi-family with ground level commercial.
Written response: Another councilmember had suggested disallowing side parking and
staff agreed in light of Council’s direction to aim for very high level of quality.
Recent discussions regarding TOD Overlay Zone
P&Z Discussion – September 20, 2012
A board member questioned the boundary west of the Mason Corridor. Staff responded
that it contains the most high performing transit lines in the city and thus was included in
the TOD.
The board consensus was that no adjustment to the boundary is warranted.
City Council Work Session – October 9, 2012
Council determined to leave the TOD boundary in its current location by reasoning that it
has only been established since 2007, the transit system is not yet fully built (notably the
MAX), and large scale developments within the district are too new to understand the
impacts.
Parking Requirements Rationale
The intent of the parking provision was to remove minimum parking requirements as a barrier to
proposed projects in the TOD, and to reflect the fact that enhanced travel options were available
or planned for those areas such as high frequency transit, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The removal of minimum parking requirements was not meant to remove the
entire obligation for development-related parking. Instead, the provision was intended to
recognize that the need for parking should be a market-based decision based on specific project
needs, the surrounding context, and available travel options and facilities.
The alternate situation is one where the City mandates parking minimums. The purpose of
parking minimums is to reduce the likelihood of spillover parking into residential areas.
However, because minimums are a “one-size-fits-all” approach, they may or may not address
the specific needs of the project, and thus could add unnecessary project costs. This may result
in excessive parking and possibly prevent some projects from moving forward. Excessive
parking increases auto dependency, reduces the ability to support travel options, increases
stormwater, contributes to air quality issues, and other problems (for a complete Triple Bottom
Line analysis of the impacts of minimum parking requirements, see the Parking Plan pages 25-
26 and 34-35).
While there is no firm evidence that the TOD parking requirements are resulting in spillover
parking issues, the City Council recently gave the authorization to move forward on a
Neighborhood Permit Program that could address residential spillover parking issues. In
addition, Council approved the Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods that
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
6
contains a policy requiring parking impact studies which would identify any parking impacts
generated by new development.
Inter-Related Strategies and Programs that Support TOD
Transit Oriented Development is characterized by higher-density mixed-use development within
walking distance of a transit station supported by features to enhance transit ridership and
walkability. The purpose of Table 1 is to show that the City is implementing a broad array of
TOD tools in addition to the parking requirements. These strategies are both inter-related and
synergistic.
Table 1. TOD Tools
TOD Tool Description/Notes Source
MAX High Frequency Bus
Rapid Transit Service
10 minute bus service from the South Transit
Station to Downtown
Mason St Corridor
Master Plan
TOD Overlay Zone Standards standards encourage land uses, densities,
and design that support attractive public
spaces, transit and other alternative
transportation
Land Use Code
Bicycle Parking Requirements bicycle parking minimums for enclosed and
fixed racks
Land Use Code
Neighborhood permit program addresses spillover parking in neighborhoods Parking Plan
Parking impact study new development will be evaluated for parking
needs and impacts
Parking Plan
Improved transit service full grid transit network and increased service
frequencies
Transit Strategic
Operating Plan
Financial incentives tax increment financing assistance Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan
In addition, consultants for the draft Midtown Urban Design Plan are currently recommending
additional strategies for implementation of the TOD dealing with:
1. Streetscape and intersection improvements
2. Gateways, urban design elements, and design guidelines
3. Pedestrian promenade along the MAX line
4. Parking strategies:
Parking district for parking management and oversight and could be linked to
financing.
Maximum parking ratios for residential developments.
Unbundled parking from housing costs where costs for parking are separated
from the cost for housing.
Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, car share programs and electric
vehicles.
Provide transit passes for residents and employees.
V. Fort Collins TOD Data
Existing TOD Projects
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
7
Attachment 2 shows all projects containing multi-family units that are under review, approved,
under construction, or have been built in the TOD since 1998, and the proximity of these
projects to transit service.
Since adoption of the TOD overlay zone in 2007 there have been nine residential projects
completed or under construction within the TOD overlay zone (see Table 2). Each of these
projects included automobile parking, although no minimum parking was required. On average
they provided about 31% less parking than would have been required without the TOD
exemption. The range of difference from what would otherwise have been required was
between +2% and -56%.
Table 2. Parking Analysis of Significant Residential TOD Projects
Project Name Bedrooms
Parking
Provided
Required If
Outside TOD Difference
Percent
Difference
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 42 ‐6 ‐13%
Flats at the Oval 98 57 83 ‐26 ‐32%
Penny Flats 280 260 255 5 2%
Pura Vida Place 100 49 90 ‐41 ‐46%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 13 ‐5 ‐38%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 6 ‐1 ‐17%
Ram's Crossing K2 58 47 67 ‐20 ‐30%
The Summit (Choice
Center)*
676 217 471 ‐254 ‐54%
Legacy Senior Apts* 112 52 118 ‐66 ‐56%
Average ‐46 ‐31%
* Under construction
In addition to project data, staff interviewed several of the managers of the projects listed in
Table 2 to better understand the parking situation:
A. Flats at the Oval:
Estimated percentage of residents with cars: 75%
Parking spaces lease for: $50/mo. (uncovered), $100/mo. (covered), $100/mo. (for a
rented garage space in alley)
Have parking for just under 60% of bedrooms (including 5 off-site spaces Flats at the
Oval is renting), but could use a lot more. Waiting list for parking spaces this year.
Occupants without leased spaces park on streets in area; typically Meldrum and Howes.
B. Pura Vida Place:
Estimated percentage of residents with cars: 80%
Parking spaces lease for $50/mo. Waiting list for parking spaces this year
75% of spaces are leased for next year (lower % of apartments are leased)
Occupants without leased spaces park on streets in area
C. Mason Street Flats (part of Penny Flats owned by Brinkman; north of corner Penny Flats
building):
24 parking spaces underground
On-street parking is more limited in this area than at Flats at the Oval
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
8
D. The Summit (multi-family portion of Choice Center):
Parking spaces lease for $35/mo. – will have a hanging tag
170 spaces are available to residents to lease (there is other parking that may be
available to tenants – up to 217 spaces). It is unknown how parking allocated for retail
uses will be restricted.
Parking Utilization
Parking utilization surveys are a common way to understand parking patterns at different times
of the day. In neighborhoods having parking concerns, they provide parking data on the blocks
and identify times that are under- or over-utilized.
For this study, parking was inventoried and counts gathered around five projects inside the
TOD. These areas are where multi-family projects are in close proximity to single family
neighborhoods, and included the following:
Big Horn Village II (Springfield/City Park)
Clock Tower Lofts (Birch west of Shields)
Flats at the Oval (Laurel/Howes)
Pura Vida Place (Laurel/Sherwood)
The Summit* (College/Stuart)
Viale Collegio (College/Laurel)
______________________________
* Under construction, parking survey provided for future comparison
A count was conducted from 6 – 7 a.m. representing a time when most residents are still at
home, and 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. representing a time when commuters to CSU park on the street.
The area for the on-street parking counts was a two-block walking area around each projects.
Table 3 shows the utilization of off-street parking at the five existing projects.
Table 3. Off-Site Parking Utilization
Project Parking Capacity
Utilization
TH 6:00 ‐ 7:00 am TH 2:20 ‐ 3:30 pm
Big Horn Village II 110 70% 85%
Clock Tower Lofts 48 90% 63%
Flats at the Oval* 57 88% 70%
Pura Vida Place* 49 98% 92%
Viale Collegio 25 52% 92%
*TOD Parking Requirements
Off-street parking utilization for the five existing projects ranges from 52% (Viale Collegio) to
98% (Pura Vida Place) at 6 a.m. However, since some of the parking inventory included
handicapped spaces, and possibly reserved for commercial uses (especially for Viale Collegio),
staff estimates that the likely utilization is closer to 100% for most projects at 6 a.m.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
9
Table 4 shows the on-street parking utilization of areas around the six subject sites for the two
time periods.
Table 4. On-Street Parking Utilization Summary on Streets Surrounding Projects
Project Area
On‐Street
Parking Capacity
TH 6:00 ‐ 7:00 a.m. TH 2:30 ‐ 3:30 p.m.
Count Utilization Count Utilization
Big Horn Village II 413 148 36% 175 42%
Clock Tower Lofts 476 161 34% 145 30%
Flats at the Oval 311 212 68% 258 83%
Pura Vida Place 351 212 60% 326 93%
The Summit 277 70 25% 63 23%
Viale Collegio 471 219 46% 255 54%
The area of greatest parking utilization is north of Laurel Street around Flats at the Oval and
Pura Vida Place. Unlike other areas that typically have driveways and garages for single family
dwellings, this area has very limited off-street parking for all types of residential units. These
experience high occupancies at all times of the day, and particularly at 2:30 p.m. One obvious
reason for the high occupancies in this area is the close proximity to primary campus
destinations like the Lory Student Center.
The other areas experience much lower utilization rates of between 23 – 54%.
For maps of overall parking utilization and detail for specific block faces, refer to the maps
contained in Attachments 3-5.
VI. Literature/Research on TOD Parking Needs
TOD Principles
Achievement of successful Transit Oriented Development depends upon public-private
partnerships based on interrelated and interdependent actions. Kimley-Horn and Associates
summarized the elements needed for an effective TOD strategy (see Attachment 6) as follows:
Land Use and Development: Concentrate a mix of complementary, well-integrated
land uses within walking distance of the transit station.
Provide a Mixture of Complementary Transit-Supportive Uses
Increase Land Use Intensity
Mobility Management: Enhance the existing transportation network to promote good
walking, bicycle, parking and transit connections.
Provide an Extensive Pedestrian & Bicycle System
Design a Multi-Modal Street Network
Implement Parking & Transportation Demand Management
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
10
Community Design: Use urban design to enhance the community identity of station
areas and to make them attractive, safe and convenient places.
Provide Pedestrian-Friendly Building & Site Design
Design the Streetscape to Encourage Pedestrian Activity
Establish Open Space Around Transit Stations and Centers of Activity
A sufficient density of housing and employment is critical to supporting high-frequency
transit service like the MAX system. Studies show that the minimum overall residential
density threshold is approximately 15 dwelling units per acre along transit routes. They
also show that the minimum employment density threshold is approximately 25 jobs per
acre. These levels of densities do not currently exist anywhere within the TOD or along
the MAX line. Many communities with TOD regulations require minimum residential and
non-residential densities for development projects near TOD station areas.
Vehicle Ownership and Storage
Vehicle ownership by students living in off-campus housing in Fort Collins appears to be
around 75 – 80% based on the off-campus housing survey and interviews of housing
managers.
A Pew Research Study (February 21, 2013) found that after the recession, the
percentage of young adults (younger than 35) owning a vehicle dropped from 73% in
2007 to 66% in 2011 (www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/21/young-adults-after-the-
recession-fewer-homes-fewer-cars-less-debt/).
Studies have shown a lower percentage of vehicle ownership for residents of TOD.
TOD households typically own fewer cars because they have smaller households, and
because they may forego extra cars due to transit’s proximity. TOD households are
almost twice as likely to not own any car, and own almost half the number of cars of
other households.
A study based on Census data found that TOD households own an average of 0.9 cars
compared to 1.6 cars for comparable households not living in TODs. TOD households
were almost twice as likely to not own a car (18.5% versus 10.7%). While about 66% of
non-TOD households own two or more cars, only about 40% of TOD households own as
many cars. In TODs, about 63% of households own fewer than two cars, compared to
45% for other households.
Studies and surveys of developers and transit agencies show that proximity to Bus
Rapid Transit had at least some positive impact on reducing parking demand.
A survey of households living in TOD projects in Portland found that 28% do not own or
lease a car, and that there were between .5 and 1.2 average cars per unit.
From a survey of residents of TOD projects, most people are reluctant to get rid of their
vehicles. For those who would consider a car-free life, the most important amenities
include:
o Easy access to transit and services such as stores and restaurants
o Transit that travels to my place of work/school
o More car-sharing options
o Affordable, high quality daycare in the area
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
11
Neighborhood Concerns
Neighborhood concerns over parking impacts from multi-family projects was the reason
Portland re-instituted minimum parking requirements for certain projects. Buildings that
are less than 40 units will still have no minimums, while those over 40 units will have to
provide one space for every four units, and the requirement can be reduced through car-
sharing.
One major challenge developers face with TOD is the increased time and expense
getting development approvals for infill development because of neighborhood concerns
about traffic and parking. Faced with opposition, a typical response is for the developer
to cut the density below transit-supportive levels and increase parking in order to get a
development approval and recover fixed costs.
Parking Requirements
Communities with TOD regulations often, but not always, reduce or eliminate minimum
parking requirements. For example:
o Denver Zoning Code: Maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 110% of the
minimum parking spaces required by context-specific ratios (Denver’s method of
calculating parking requirements everywhere). Parking in structures doesn’t
count toward the maximums.
o Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 5 – 1.0 space per multi-family
dwelling unit depending on proximity to station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per
unit depending on number of bedrooms outside TOD.
o Lakewood Transit Mixed Use Zone District: Minimum 1 space per unit, maximum
2 spaces per unit. Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums.
The parking requirements may be met on-site or off-site at a distance of up to
600 feet from the use.
o Eugene, Oregon: Establishes parking exempt areas not subject to minimums
including Downtown and a couple other areas.
Metro Portland recommends three actions when the parking ratio is below 1.0
space/unit:
1. Charge for all covered parking
2. Get flexcar (car-share) in your building or nearby
3. Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking,
etc.)
VII. Attachments
1. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Boundary
2. Multi-Family Projects in the TOD Since 1998 Map
3. Overall Parking Utilization Map – AM Counts
4. Overall Parking Utilization Map – PM Counts
5. Parking Utilization Maps for Specific Project Areas
6. Transit Oriented Development and Station Area Design Principles
7. TOD Information Resources
Transit Or
Attachm
riented Devel
ment 1: Tran
lopment (TOD
sit Oriented
D) Parking Stu
d Developm
udy
12
ment (TOD) OOverlay Boundary
May 10,
2013
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
13
Attachment 2: Multi-Family Projects in the TOD Since 1998
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
14
Attachment 3: Overall Parking Utilization Map – AM Counts
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
15
Attachment 4: Overall Parking Utilization Map – PM Counts
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
16
Attachment 5: Parking Utilization Maps for Specific Project Areas
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
17
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
18
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
19
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
20
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
21
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
22
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
23
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
24
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
25
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
26
Transit Or
riented Devellopment (TODD) Parking Stuudy
27
May 10, 2013
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
28
Transit Or
Attachm
riented Devel
ment 6: Tran
lopment (TOD
sit Oriented
D) Parking Stu
d Developm
udy
29
ment and Staation Area DDesign Prin
May 10,
nciples
2013
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013
30
Attachment 7: TOD Information Resources
“A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion”, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1989.
Aurora Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District, City of Aurora, Planning Department,
February 21, 2009.
Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on Transit Oriented
Development Around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Australia. Breakthrough
Technologies Institute, Washington D.C., 2008.
City of Lakewood Land Use Code, Article 22: Transit Mixed Use Zone District, May 2011.
City of Portland Land Use Code, Chapter 33.266 Parking and Loading, July 1, 2011.
City of Portland Parking Impacts for New TOD Along Portland Inner Corridors Parking Study.
David Evans and Associates, November 2012.
Denver Zoning Code, Division 10.4 Parking and Loading, June 25, 2010.
“Portland Reimposes Parking Requirements,” Cities&Towns Online, Robert Steuteville, 2013.
Role of Parking Management in Livable Communities, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, Railvolution, November 7, 2006.
Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Study: Special Report - Parking and TOD:
Challenges and Opportunities. Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, California
Department of Transportation, February 2002.
Strengths and Weakness of Bus in Relation to Transit Oriented Development, Professor
Graham Currie, Chair of Public Transport, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University,
Australia
TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, Kittleson & Associates;
Transportation Research Board, 2007.
TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Robert Cervero; G B
Arrington; Transportation Research Board, 2008.
Transit Oriented Development, Oregon Metro, website
www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/140
Projects in the TOD Overlay
Zone
Bedrooms Parking Provided
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to Bedrooms
Parking Required If
Outside TOD
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to Bedrooms
The Summit (Choice Center)* 676 217 32.1% 471 70%
Ram's Crossing K2 140 47 33.6% 191 136%
Legacy Senior Apts* 112 52 46.4% 118 105%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 47.1% 13 76%
Pura Vida Place 100 49 49.0% 90 90%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 55.6% 6 67%
Flats at the Oval 98 57 58.2% 83 85%
Carriage House Apts* 90 58 64.4% 95 106%
District at Campus West* 658 461 70.1% 431 66%
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 78.3% 42 91%
Penny Flats 280 260 92.9% 255 91%
Average 57.0% Average 89%
w/o outliers 58.6% w/o outliers 79%
*under construction
Parking Analysis of Projects in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
Average of Ratio of Parking Provided, and
Ratio of Parking Required if Outside the
TOD
73.2%
w/o outliers 69.0%
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
August 8, 2013
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Hart, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider
Excused Absence: Heinz
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Levingston, Shepard, Ex, Stanford, Lorson, Varrella, and
Sanchez-Sprague
…
Discussion Agenda:
7. Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and
Clean-up Items
4. Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012
5. Prospect and Timberline Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001
6. Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, #PDP130020
8. Land Use Code Amendment related Transited Oriented Development Minimum Parking
Requirements
…
_______
Project: Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments related to Transit Overlay District
Minimum Parking Requirements
Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed
revision to the Land Use Code. This revision pertains to creating a minimum
parking requirement for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The recommendation is to revise the Land
Use Code to require a minimum ratio of 70% parking spaces to the proposed
number of bedrooms and a provision to meet the standard through alternative
compliance.
Recommendation: Recommend to City Council the adoption of LUC amendments
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 2
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
CDNS Director Kadrich said the issue before the board is a follow- up to the July 9th City Council/
Planning and Zoning Board Joint Work Session. One of the emerging issues discussed was the
negative effect of higher density projects within the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) Overlay Zone
which may be causing spill-over parking in adjacent residential areas. Because there is not currently a
parking requirement within the TOD, the purpose tonight is to follow Council direction to look for a first
step or stop-gap measure. It would allow for further study for a more systematic approach to the issue of
parking within the TOD.
City Planner Seth Lorson said the Land Use Code (LUC) amendment is to establish minimum parking
requirements for the TOD. He said a minimum parking requirement for that area has not existed since
2006. Staff analyzed 11 multi-family projects that have been developed in the TOD since 2006. He
reviewed a table showing project names, bedrooms, parking provided, and ratio of parking spaces to
bedrooms. On the table he compared that to parking requirements had the project been outside the
TOD and what the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms would have been in that situation. The average
ratio between inside and outside the TOD was 73%. Within the TOD, the average without outliers was
58%. Lorson said those results show what the market is providing.
Lorson said staff compared our TOD requirements with other communities’ TOD districts (including
Boulder, Aurora, Lakewood, Denver, and Eugene and Portland Oregon). Lorson said even today’s
proposal for 70% parking spaces to bedrooms is much higher than what we’re seeing in other
communities.
Lorson said after the work session he did further research looking at notes, minutes, and staff reports on
the creation of the TOD. He said nowhere did he find the intent was to get ‘x’ percentage. He thinks the
intent was actually to let the market dictate what is needed.
Lorson said an alternative compliance would allow an applicant to make the case ‘they don’t need the
70% -- we can do it for less based on a number of mitigation measures’ including proximity to transit
stations. He said elements of the parking analysis would show expected parking demand, non-vehicular
use, and mitigation measures such as off-site parking for storage or car-share.
Lorson said within the next year staff proposes additional work that includes an update to Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) requirements in LCUASS (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards), methods for review
of the parking analysis, and possibly more dynamic parking requirements. Lorson noted the ordinance
before the board has a one-year sunset clause. That time will allow staff to look at the elements in a
comprehensive approach at a more fine-grade level.
Director Kadrich said on behalf of the board, she contacted Kathleen Bracke who is now working in
Boulder. Kathleen was a part of the original TOD study and implementation team. Kathleen worked on
transportation issues in our community for many years prior to working in Boulder. Some of the
information she provided was implementation of the TOD was intended to help the community move from
a suburban plan to a more urban environment. It was also meant to assist in a more dense/intense
urban development in which there would be more mass transit and less reliance on vehicles. Bracke
shared the complexity of the parking issues within the Boulder community and stated how complex the
parking issue can be in different communities.
Kadrich said tonight the percentage put forth is intended to be a starting point. Kadrich said her
conversation with Bracke certainly corroborates with the written document as far as the market driven
parking. Kadrich asked Bracke if the original plan considered outliers (those intense developments
submitted that did not provide much parking). She said it did but she could understand how difficult it
could be for the community because the theory is those folks who did not have a vehicle would select
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 3
that unit to rent and have other options. Kadrich said Bracke understood overall why we are in a
quandary over what to do in the interim period. She also advised us not to select any one tool to address
the issue. In her experience, multiple tools are preferred. Kadrich said that’s similar to what they learned
in the downtown parting study and it’s been supported in the work staff has done to date.
Public Input
None
Board Questions
Member Carpenter said is she to understand this is a stop-gap measure while we explore what other
tools might be. Kadrich said yes. It is a tool for which the board can review proposals – they’ll have
something specific from which they can assess alternative compliance.
Member Hart said all the communities used as an example have extensive public transit systems. We’re
still building ours so we shouldn’t really be using them because they are very much more interconnected
with their public transit. Once we get there, however, we can go that route. At this point we’re just trying
to provide a stop-gap.
Member Schneider said he’d prefer a lower number (e.g. 50%) to allow the developers to be more
innovate with alternative compliance. He thinks it would ‘force’ use of multi-modal sooner rather than
later. He asked if the number is higher would they be as willing to look at alternative compliance
measures. Lorson said possibly. In conversations with developers he’s learned they are shooting for a
50-60% market place rate.
Member Schneider asked could we look at where they can park. Can they currently use public streets for
meeting their parking requirements? Lorson said no. He said part of the alternative compliance
conversation is ‘show us how it can work’ with car storage being one of the mitigation measures.
Member Carpenter asked how much public outreach has been done on this issue. Kadrich said we’ve
been going on a project by project basis. From the Planning Services standpoint, we have a lot of good
plans (City Plan, sub-area plans, neighborhood plans). We also have a changing community in which
folks who participated in the initial outreach may not be aware of where we are today. Kadrich said
we’ve been talking internally about ways we can capture either executive summaries or the ‘top 10’ for a
geographical area so we can begin to include that in our development review information. Kadrich said
she’s been working with Neighborhood Services and the Neighborhood Development Review Liaison –
looking for ways for being more proactive with sharing that information and collecting their feedback.
Carpenter thinks that would be a good piece to add this next year.
Director Kadrich said with regard to Member Schneider’s question about whether the 70% would create
more creative thinking; she’s had a few minutes to think about that and she’s not convinced that it would.
She said the purpose of this is really to give the board a tool in which they can better establish
compatibility by having a percentage to use. You’d also have options with alternative compliance so it’s
available for you as you review upcoming TOD projects until we have a fuller tool box to bring back to
you. Kadrich said based on what we’re seeing, developers overall are trying to reach that 50-60% mark.
We are looking to the board and to council to consider a stop-gap for those projects that are either
unwilling or unable so we don’t have outliers that come before we have a broader program.
Member Kirkpatrick said she had some questions on implementation. If we were to approve a new
minimum parking requirement, how quickly could that go into effect? Would you be notifying projects
that have been through conceptual review? Lorson said it would be very customer friendly to reach out.
He said it would be in effect just after second reading on September 13. Director Kadrich said the
practice has been that if an application has been received and the fees are paid prior to a change in the
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 4
code; new code changes going into effect would not affect them. Member Hart asked is that not to say
we could use the compatibility standard to get parking the board thinks appropriate. Kadrich said
absolutely.
Board Discussion
Member Hart said he thinks we need a stop-gap. He doesn’t know if it should be 60, 70 or 80%. He
thinks 70% seems to have some kind of wheels. He thinks it should be on the higher end. He agrees
with Member Schneider that we should encourage innovation. He thinks we need to get a minimum in
there until we can come up with a program that makes sense.
Member Carpenter said she agrees and is comfortable with 70%.
Member Kirkpatrick said she really thinks the role of the board is to act as guardian of the LUC and to
support the implementation of City Plan. There are gaps between the City Plan vision (to have a really
compact, transit-oriented, dense urban core) and the tools we have in our tool box. She said we don’t
have the tools to promote a highly functioning transit system. We also do not have lots of tools for
handling that interface between neighborhoods in that really dense, urban core. She said nonetheless,
that is our vision and we are taking a huge step in the wrong direction by instituting a 70% standard.
That is such a drastic difference from zero. She said we are not going to get where we need to be in
terms of economic redevelopment, reinvestment in that core, and having the density to have a
functioning transit system if we are creating a suburban footprint in an urban core. She said we could
consider a sunset provision at a lower percentage.
Member Hatfield said he thinks 70% is fine.
Member Schneider said he agrees with Member Kirkpatrick’s statements that it should be closer to 50%;
he just wonders how we get people to start implementing different creative programs. He doesn’t know
how to get it going except with a higher number.
Chair Smith said where one person might say 90% is better he would say that’s far worse. He sees it’s
not necessarily a good thing to over park in an urban neighborhood where we’re trying to promote
density and mixed use. He thinks you have to have density in order for transit to work. He said as a
community we are struggling with these two primary objectives in our Comprehensive Plan -- urban
density and the neighborhood character we’re trying to preserve.
Chair Smith said ultimately having some type of alternative compliance is only as good and as useful as
the decision maker is willing to accept. When we say alternative compliance might be part of the final
solution, we have to have the courage to really believe that. We have to believe it’s equal to or better
than the standard. In the meantime he could probably accept some number. He said 70% is too high. It
goes so far from the intent of the TOD.
Member Carpenter said she feels we need to work really hard to find the balance. She said her focus is
to protect the neighborhoods that we have and she thinks we are really in danger of pushing so much out
into the neighborhoods with car storage. She’d really like to see 70% at this point until we do the work
we need to do to fix the problem.
Chair Smith said he hopes when we have this community conversation that we don’t necessarily say
there is not a problem with car storage but that we broaden that discussion so we go back to articulating
what the benefits are as well. You could say, ‘you live in a great established neighborhood with easy
access to CSU, old town, mid-town and MAX. Yeah there are more folks, cars and activity. It is exactly
what our Comp Plan has called for and it’s not the way it used to be; however, you may not need both
cars anymore.’ It’s a holistic approach of understanding the issue. He thinks we’d lose the overall
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 5
academic discussion if we don’t include the benefits, the reduction in VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled), the
walkability, the closer-knit community. Member Carpenter said she agrees with that. She said what
Chair Smith is saying is right but what she’s afraid is we are moving the parking storage problem outside
the TOD and into neighborhoods that do not have the benefits outlined by Chair Smith. Carpenter said
we also have to work on our mass transit system so it works better.
Member Schneider wondered if the ‘happy’ compromise is 60%. He’d like to see what development is in
‘production’ and close out the problems that might come out. Maybe it is spillover into the neighborhood
but he said we have zero now. He thinks 70% is too high although if it’s higher it would encourage
people to seek alternative compliance. He’d rather see 50 or 60% but that’s what’s being reached by
developers now. Chair Smith said that’s a great approach...we’d address the outliers and find a little
benefit for the time being. Let’s move closer to what we see as being the overall average of what we
would find acceptable for a stop-gap. Many times we do pretty well about getting consensus – let’s see if
we can come up with a motion and whether or not it’ll fly.
Member Schneider made a motion to recommend to City Council to amend the Land Use Code
related to Transit Oriented Development Minimum Parking Requirements to be at 60% with a one
year sunset provision. Chair Smith seconded the motion.
Member Hart said 70% has some legs on it. He said from the chart that Lorson provided, you could see
how much a significant differences it can make. At 60% you’re going to impact those outlying
neighborhoods even more.
Member Schneider said he thinks we’re making a significant change at 60% because currently it’s at
zero.
Member Hart said the argument is that people are doing 60% now. What we’re trying to do is improve
the situation not just continue the existing situation.
Member Schneider said we’re trying to hit those outliers—those at 30%. If we look at City Plan and the
Climate Action Plan, we don’t want to be at 70, 80 or 90%. We might as well have subdivisions.
Member Hart said we’re talking one year – 2, 3, or 4 projects maybe. Member Hatfield called for the
question.
The motion failed 2:4 with Carpenter, Hart, Kirkpatrick, and Hatfield dissenting.
Member Hart made a motion to recommend to City Council that we establish a minimum parking
requirement for multi-family dwellings in the Transit Oriented District at 70% of the spaces
provided as proposed with a one year sunset. Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The Motion failed 3:3 with Kirkpatrick, Schneider and Smith dissenting.
There was some discussion about what the number should be. Chair Smith said anything over 60 he will
likely vote no.
Member Schneider made a motion to recommend to City Council to amend the Land Use Code
related to Transit Oriented Development Minimum Parking Requirements to be at 60% with a one
year sunset provision. Member Hart seconded the motion.
Member Hart said he’d like to send a recommendation to City Council and he doesn’t think that 60% is
as good as 70% but he’d like something rather than nothing.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 6
The Motion failed 3:3 with Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield dissenting.
Chair Smith said he got the sense from City Council at the joint meeting on July 9 that there was some
interest by them to scrap the whole TOD – establish a moratorium. He doesn’t feel comfortable with 60%
but he’s willing to accept that. Member Kirkpatrick thinks we are effectively putting a moratorium on the
TOD. She doesn’t think you can have a one acre in-fill site and charge $35,000 for a subterranean
parking spot and have it work in this market. Member Schneider thinks people will conclude its worth
more to have a bedroom or a mixed-use unit than it is to have a parking spot so they’ll figure out a way to
get the alternative compliance going. Member Kirkpatrick thinks we will get that after we dig in and
spend a year getting the tools we need as well as determining how we can best get long term parking
storage.
Member Hatfield said we’ve had three votes on the question and they’ve all three failed. Either we not
make a recommend or we make a recommendation at 70% with a one year sunset. Then at the end of
that one year it could be re-evaluated.
Member Carpenter made a motion to recommend to City Council a change in the LUC to 65%
parking spaces with a one year sunset. Member Hart seconded the motion. The Motion failed
3:3 with Kirkpatrick, Schneider and Smith dissenting.
Chair Smith asked staff about the feasibility of a shorter 6 month sunset period. Director Kadrich said
that might be problematic. She’d like to say they could do the work in less than a year but she’s not
convinced because of the scope of the work required. She said we have some unique situations –
current studies that are taking place. She’s not sure how quickly that will happen and she’s not sure how
long the scope of the work that needs to be done will take. She hesitated to say we can do that in less
than six months especially if we take a look at the public engagement piece. She said there are other
efforts related to parking and trying to do this in a 3 or 6 month period might be too quick.
Member Schneider asked for a policy versus legislative question, doesn’t a tie vote go to the chair.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said no. A tied vote means the question fails and a recommendation
doesn’t go to City Council. Eckman said the information that would go to City Council is the board is
deadlocked and couldn’t make a recommendation. Director Kadrich said they could include information
relative to the deadlock in the Agenda Item Summary. They could also include portions of discussion of
reasons why.
Chair Smith said the question being asked is whether or not we’d want to put a stop-gap minimum
amount of parking in the TOD for a certain amount of time. Maybe we need to come up with a boarder
recommendation. The recommendation may be we struggled with this divisive issue. He said we think
our discussion is probably reflective of what the community may feel. It may be something with which
the Council may have to wrestle. He said we might say that our opinions on this board are too divergent.
We could not come to consensus and we hope they can. He said we have strong opinions that want to
move in one direction and we have just as many folks that want to move in another direction.
Eckman asked if they could recommend the alternative compliance measures that have been crafted into
the ordinance. Chair Smith yes, that’s critical.
Member Schneider asked if it would be detrimental to give them a range such as 50 to 70%. Member
Carpenter said she couldn’t go 50% -- she’d rather see 70%. Chair Smith said Member Schneider has a
good point, he believes there’s a majority of board members here tonight who could support a range. If
we said a range between 30 and 80% might that work? Smith said that it is likely neither Member
Kirkpatrick nor he could support that but there may be 4 members who could.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 7
Member Carpenter made a motion that the board recommend to City Council that revise the Land
Use Code to require a minimum ratio of between 60 and 70% with a one year sunset and
alternative compliance. Member Schneider seconded the motion.
Chair Smith said for that would indicate to City Council the board could not come up with a specific
number. Member Carpenter said yes. She said we underscore what Chair Smith said earlier relative to
divergent opinions. Member Hart said that Council will know the board’s struggle because we couldn’t
reach agreement on a specific percentage. Hart called for the question.
The motion passed 4:2 with Members Kirkpatrick and Smith dissenting.
Member Kirkpatrick asked in addition to the ordinance are there other things the board could recommend
such as funding in the short term. What she heard on July 9th was to come back with recommendations
for things such as the parking issue overall. To her, it’s more than a minimum; it would mean funding the
implementation of a parking impact analysis – something in the short term while we’re having a longer
term study.
Director Kadrich said if the board would like to support the recommendation that we have funding for a
study, you can. Kadrich said she has already conferred with her supervisors what is necessary in order
to carry this forward and they are working on how they can use existing budget to fund it. She said we
can make sure it’s part of the presentation that this is just a stop-gap as we complete that study.
Chair Smith agreed and suggested we create another recommendation. He thinks this is one of the most
critical discussions our community is having. He thinks it’s worthy of emergency funding if it cannot be
found within existing budget. With all the different alternative methods, this may become the highest
priority for CDNS.
Member Kirkpatrick said Council just passed a parking plan so funding to implement components of that
would be applicable to this interface between the TOD and residential neighborhoods.
After some discussion of the elements of the recommendation and some wordsmithing the following
motion was made.
Member Hart made a motion the board recommend to City Council that funding be provided at a
high priority for a comprehensive effort that could include a study of the parking issues in the
TOD zone and that the study include public outreach and the development of tools for
implementation and resolutions of the problems. It’s recommended that public outreach include
a reiteration of the benefits of the TOD. Also, the study and the implementation tools should be
developed by the sunset of the stop-gap measure. Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5:0:1 with Member Hatfield abstaining.
…
1
Minimum Parking Requirements
in the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone
City Council Meeting
August 20, 2013
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Background
Purpose:
Incentivize infill and
redevelopment as identified
in City Plan; assist with
walkable and transit-oriented
Mason Corridor/MAX BRT.
2006: Map & Parking
2007: Development
Standards
3
Background
July 9, 2013:
P&Z-CC Joint Work Session
Direction to create minimum
parking requirements in the
TOD Overlay but maintain
vision for TOD.
4
Analysis of TOD Projects
5
Analysis of TOD Projects
6
Other Communities’ TOD Parking
Community Districts Parking Requirements
Boulder, CO MU-4; RH-7 0 – 1 space per DU
Aurora, CO TOD 0.5 – 1 space per DU
Lakewood, CO Mixed-use Transit 1 – 2 spaces per DU
Eugene, OR Citywide (TOD:
Development standards
only.)
Min. 1 space per DU
(-25% by right; -50%
mixed-use)
Portland, OR “Served by Transit” >30 DUs: 0 min.
31-40 DUs: 0.2 per DU
41-50 DUs: 0.25 per DU
51+ DUs: 0.33 per DU
Denver, CO Urban Center
(TOD = 110% Max)
Min 0.75 spaces per DU
7
Planning and Zoning Board
August 8, 2013 – Discussion
• City Plan vision for TOD and infill/redevelopment.
• Spillover impacts on neighborhoods.
• City’s interim condition without MAX.
• Creative and comprehensive solutions.
• Deliberation of minimum parking ratios.
8
Planning and Zoning Board
Recommendations
• Require minimum parking ratio of 60% - 70%
(final number to be decided by Council) with
Alternative Compliance option. To sunset in 1
year.
• Fund a comprehensive parking plan for the TOD
Overlay with public outreach to be completed
before the ordinance sunsets.
9
Parking Analysis
Elements of Parking Analysis:
• Expected parking demand.
• Non-vehicular use.
• Mitigation measures.
Additional Work:
• Methods for review of Parking Analysis.
• More dynamic parking requirements.
• Comprehensive approach to parking.
10
Questions for Council Consideration
1. Does Council agree with the recommendation to
create a minimum parking requirement with an
alternative compliance option in the TOD Overlay
Zone?
2. If so, what parking ratio should be applied?
(P&Z recommended between 60% - 70%.)
11
Thank you.
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 3.2.2(K) OF THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code
calls for a higher concentration of residential density and mixed-use development supported by
investment and infrastructure, including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design
improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Transit-Oriented Development
Overlay Zone District (the “TOD”); and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Code presently contains no minimum parking requirements
for multi-family developments within the TOD; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a minimum parking standard for multi-family development
within the TOD was premised upon the full implementation of the above-mentioned
infrastructure investments; and
WHEREAS, given that such investments have not yet been fully implemented, the City
Council has determined that the Land Use Code should be amended to require a certain
minimum number of parking spaces for multi-family developments in order to alleviate concerns
about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended to the City Council that
Section 3.2.2(K) of the Land Use Code be amended to establish certain minimum parking
requirements in the TOD; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
Section 3.2.2(K) be so amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional
uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards
below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be
parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table:
- 2 -
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2.0
Four and above 3.0
* Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking
structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide
direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum
requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit
occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate
or purchase price).
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum
parking requirements provide a minimum number of parking spaces in an
amount equal to or greater than __________ percent of the number of
proposed bedrooms in the development.
2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the
decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the
minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio
meeting the standards of this Section.
a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal
requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for
alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking
Analysis.
b. Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall include the following:
1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project
size, location, employees, units, and/or bedrooms. To the
extent reasonably feasible, comparable local and regional
parking demand rates for similar uses shall be utilized
together with the average demand rates for similar facilities
compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE).
- 3 -
2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall
be determined based on Transportation Impact Study
analysis.
3) Identification of parking mitigation measures to be utilized
(beyond non-vehicular mode usage and support). Specific
measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include,
but are not limited to:
a) Shared parking.
b) Off-site parking.
c) Parking pricing.
d) Transit pass program.
e) Unbundling parking spaces from residential
dwelling units.
f) Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car
sharing, shuttle services.
g) Enhancements that encourage bicycle and
pedestrian mobility.
h) Other verifiable parking demand reduction
measures.
4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be
removed as part of the project, if any.
5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking
locations.
c. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision
maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan
accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay
Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the
request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine
whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision
maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of
the Parking Analysis together with the proposed plan’s
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential
spillover parking.
. . .
Section 2. That this Ordinance shall terminate and be of no further force and effect at
the close of business on September 13, 2014, unless extended by ordinance of the City Council.
- 4 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
August, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of September, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of September, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk