HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/27/2014 - TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PARKING STUDYDATE:
STAFF:
May 27, 2014
Seth Lorson, City Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Mgr
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to discuss with Council the recommended alternatives from the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study.
The Study follows the adoption of the temporary parking ordinance (Ordinance No. 121, 2013) creating minimum
parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone which expires in September 2014. Staff has conducted extensive
public outreach and research on national best practices as part of the Study to date. We have heard consistent
feedback from the community that, although the City’s vision for walkable and transit-oriented infill and
redevelopment is commendable, and vehicles may not be needed for routine trips, residents still own cars and,
therefore, vehicle storage and access needs to be accommodated.
Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Parking Advisory Board unanimously recommended adopting the
TOD Parking Study with the following recommendations:
Create minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use;
Allow for alternative compliance based on a Parking Impact Study and/or a Transportation Demand
Management program;
On-street paid parking with the newest management technology; and
Public-private partnerships for parking structures.
Based on direction received from Council, Staff will propose for adoption the TOD Parking Study and revisions to
the Land Use Code at the August 19 and September 2, 2014 Council meetings.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Board and Parking Advisory Board?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Background:
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone primarily consists of the commercial districts in the
College Avenue and Mason Street Corridors, Downtown and the CSU Campus areas. The purpose of the TOD
Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, and walkable infill and redevelopment projects.
Adopted in 2006-2007, the TOD Overlay Zone standards removed minimum parking requirements for mixed-use
and multi-family dwellings. The intent was to incentivize redevelopment on challenging infill sites, and show
commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment. The amount of parking provided was anticipated to
be driven by market demand, balancing the need to provide adequate parking as an amenity, with the constraints
of maximizing development potential on difficult infill sites.
May 27, 2014 Page 2
Problem Statement:
In 2013, as infill and redevelopment activity increased in the TOD Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning Board
and the City Council expressed concerns about the lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the
parking demand and the potential for spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been
expressed about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density.
To address these concerns, the City Council adopted a “stop-gap” ordinance requiring minimum parking in the
TOD Overlay Zone. The temporary minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard with an alternative
compliance element that permits to a parking impact study.
Project Objectives:
1. Implement parking standards in the Land Use Code for multi-family and mixed-use residential and
commercial development in the TOD Overlay Zone.
a. Ensure parking standards are in conformance with the community vision as outlined in City Plan, the
Parking Plan, the Transportation Master Plan and the Mason Corridor Plan, in regards to transit-oriented
development and neighborhood compatibility.
b. Explore a comprehensive approach to TOD Overlay Zone parking requirements.
c. Base standards on data collected and best practices for a community the size of Fort Collins.
2. Engage community stakeholders, specifically residents and business owners in and adjacent to the TOD
Overlay Zone and the Fort Collins Parking Advisory Board, through thorough outreach presenting
information gathered, institutionally accepted best practices, and alternative options.
3. Establish a policy foundation for parking in the TOD Overlay Zone as an amendment to the existing Parking
Plan.
4. Evaluate a possible parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu.
Discussion: Recommendations
The TOD Parking Study endeavored to achieve the project objectives in a manner that balanced the various
perspectives of the community, existing and relevant adopted policies, data-driven conditions on-the-ground, and
best practices from literature review and peer communities.
Create minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use
The recommended minimum parking requirements consider various land uses and that they generate different
parking demand, including multi-family, rent-by-the-bedroom multi-family, senior housing, affordable housing, and
various commercial uses. The recommended requirements also provide the ability to reduce the minimum
requirement by providing demand mitigation strategies, as shown in the spreadsheet below.
May 27, 2014 Page 3
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Parking Requirements*
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement
Rent-by-the-Bedroom
Multi-family Dwellings
Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.75
Multi-family Senior Dwellings Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.3
Multifamily Dwellings
# Bedrooms/Unit
Parking spaces/unit
One or less 0.75
Two 1
Three 1.25
Four and above 1.5
Demand Mitigation Strategy Parking Requirement Reduction**
Affordable Housing
(< 50% AMI)
50%
Transit Passes 10%
Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share
Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX
Station
10%
Shared Parking
Based on Shared Parking Study
Results (Land Use Dependent)
Off-Site Parking 1:1
Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10%
Parking Impact Study Based on Proposal
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Proposal
* Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure.
** Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or
Transportation Demand Management.
May 27, 2014 Page 4
The recommended minimum parking requirements were evaluated against existing development in the TOD
Overlay Zone, the same evaluation that was done with the creation of the temporary ordinance. (Attachment 1).
Commercial Parking Requirements
Currently, the Land Use Code does not have minimum parking requirements for commercial land uses; it only has
maximum requirements. This study recommends the creation of minimum parking requirements at approximately
50% of the maximum requirement. However, this requirement would not apply to existing structures that are
proposing a change of use, nor the first 25% or 5,000 square feet (whichever is greater) of new buildings. The
Code already has an alternative compliance section for commercial parking that allows flexibility from the
minimum and maximum requirements.
Allow for alternative compliance based on a Parking Impact Study and/or a Transportation Demand
Management program
This recommendation provides the opportunity for new development proposals to provide a comprehensive
analysis of their parking demand and impacts. A Parking Impact Study would be provided by a third-party
consultant that would analyze the parking impacts and opportunities to mitigate those impacts. Please find
attached the draft Parking Impact Study Guidelines (Attachment 2).
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program is a service to help private employers and developers
access a range of parking and trip reduction tools and programs. A draft example of a TDM checklist is shown in
Attachment 3. Implementation of this recommendation is outside the scope of this project, however, FC Moves
has a budget offer to create and staff a TDM Program.
On-street paid parking with the newest management technology
A recommendation for on-street paid parking was identified during outreach to community and stakeholders and
by the consultant, Kimley-Horn Associates. Implementation of this recommendation is outside the scope of this
project, however, Parking Services has a budget offer to create an on-street paid parking pilot program. As part of
the proposed project, Parking Services will be further examining all the elements of on-street paid parking,
including; where and when it is most appropriate to be administered, how much it will cost and the payment
structure, technology, details of management, use of revenue, and further stakeholder outreach.
Public-private partnerships for parking structures
A recommendation to develop a comprehensive approach for public-private partnerships to construct parking
structures was identified by the City’s consultant and received enthusiastic support from the community.
Implementation of this recommendation requires establishment of criteria the City would use when considering
proposals for joint public-private parking investments. While this additional work falls outside the scope of the
TOD Parking Study, Economic Health staff is already discussing ways to incorporate public-private partnerships
for parking structures into its economic strategies.
The TOD Parking Study has done extensive community outreach, a triple-bottom line analysis, research on best
practices, parking literature, peer communities, existing City policy, and data collection at TOD projects in Fort
Collins. All of these elements are contained in the Draft TOD Parking Study (Attachment 4).
ATTACHMENTS
1. TOD Projects Parking Analysis (PDF)
2. Parking Impact Study Guidelines - Draft (DOCX)
3. Draft TDM Checklist (DOCX)
4. TOD Parking Study - Draft (DOCX)
5. Staff Presentation (PPTX)
Projects in the TOD Overlay
Zone
Bedrooms Parking Spaces
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to
Bedrooms
Parking Spaces
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to
Bedrooms
Parking Spaces
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to
Bedrooms
Parking Spaces
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to
Bedrooms
Parking Spaces
Ratio of Parking
Spaces to
Bedrooms
The Summit (Choice
Center)*(RBB)
665 217 32.6% 512.5 77% 358.8 53.9% 498.8 75.0% 573.6 86.3%
The Summit (Choice Center) w/
Parking Garage*(RBB)
665 537 80.8% 512.5 77% 358.8 53.9% 498.8 75.0% 573.6 86.3%
Ram's Crossing K2(RBB) 140 47 33.6% 191.0 136% 133.9 95.6% 105.0 75.0% 120.8 86.3%
Legacy Senior Apts*(s) 112 52 46.4% 118 105% 82.6 73.8% 33.6 30.0% 38.6 34.5%
318 W Myrtle 17 8 47.1% 13 76% 9.1 53.5% 7.8 45.6% 8.9 52.4%
Pura Vida Place (RBB) 100 49 49.0% 90 90% 63.0 63.0% 75.0 75.0% 86.3 86.3%
Sherwood Forts 9 5 55.6% 6 67% 4.2 46.7% 3.8 41.7% 4.3 47.9%
Flats at the Oval (RBB) 96 57 59.4% 83 86% 57.1 59.4% 72.0 75.0% 82.8 86.3%
Carriage House Apts*(RBB) 90 58 64.4% 95 106% 66.5 73.9% 67.5 75.0% 77.6 86.3%
District at Campus West*(RBB) 658 461
70.1%
431 66% 343.0 52.1% 493.5 75.0% 567.5 86.3%
Willow Street Lofts 46 36 78.3% 42 91% 29.1 63.2% 23.5 51.1% 27.0 58.8%
Penny Flats 311 312 100.3% 255 82% 209.8 67.5% 164.8 53.0% 189.5 60.9%
Average 57.9% Average 89% Average 64% Average 61% Average 70%
RBB Only 51.5% RBB Only 94% RBB Only 66% RBB Only 75% RBB Only 86.3%
*under construction
(RBB) Rent-by-the-bedroom
(s) Senior housing
Existing Complies with Standard
Existing - Market Driven
Temporary Ordinance Inside
TOD
Existing Parking Requirement
Outside TOD
Parking Analysis of Projects in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
TOD Parking Study - Proposed Maxium
Recommendation (115% of Minimum)
5/8/14
TOD Parking Study - Proposed
Minimum Recommendation 5/8/14
Parking Impact Study
Guidelines
May 5, 2014
As part of the Alternative Compliance process regarding parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone
development review process, applicants can either follow the parking requirement standards or they have
the option of providing, at their cost, a parking impact study.
The following are guidelines outlining the contents of parking impact study that would be acceptable to
the City of Fort Collins:
PARKING IMPACT STUDY REPORT FORMAT & CONTENTS
1. Title Page
2. Executive Summary
3. Table of Contents
4. Introduction
5. Planning Context
a. Study area
b. Existing site plan
c. Other developments within study area
d. Map(s) and descriptive text
e. Transportation network overview
f. Transit, cycling and walking environment
6. Current Parking Assessment
a. Current parking inventory
b. Current land uses
c. Existing traffic conditions
7. Description of Proposed Project
a. Description of proposed land uses, including size (sq.ft.)
b. Document proposed development schedule and project phasing
8. Parking Analysis
a. Calculation of required parking for proposed project based on current land use code
b. Assessment of existing parking conditions within a three block radius of the proposed
development, including documentation of on-street parking
i. Document existing available off-street parking within the study area, both on-site
and within the immediate vicinity (3 block radius)
ii. Document availability of on-street and/or shared parking opportunities, include
documentation of availability at multiple timeframes. Document total supply and
percent utilization on a lot-by-lot basis by timeframe
iii. Document walking distances from parking areas to demand generators. Note
topography and other environmental issues.
c. Calculation of peak parking demand based on all proposed project land uses
d. Conduct a limited parking rate survey in the immediate area
e. Conduct a shared parking analysis (based on the latest Urban land Institute (ULI) Shared
Parking methodology) to document peak parking accumulation patterns based on time of
day, day of week and seasonal variations
i. Documentation of potential “captive market factors” should also be included
f. Identify opportunities to reduce parking demand through the application of advanced
parking management and TDM alternatives and their estimated reduction in parking
demand by strategy
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
a. Document recommended parking to be provided (based on analysis with and without
shared parking and other demand reduction factors)
b. Provide maps to summarize and illustrate.
CITY PLANNING REVIEW
The completed Parking Impact Study will be submitted to City planning staff for review. City staff will
assess the study recommendations based on a standard alternative compliance application review
process. This process includes the following criteria:
Review Criteria - To approve an exception to the standard, the decision maker must first find that the
proposed project accomplishes the general purposes of the applicable section(s) of the land use code. In
reviewing the request for an exception to the standard parking ratio and in order to determine whether
such request is consistent with the purposes of this subsection, as required above, the decision maker
shall take into account the following:
The anticipated number of employees occupying the building
The number and frequency of expected customers or clients
The availability of nearby on-street parking (if any)
The availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any)
The provision of purchased or leased parking spaces in a municipal or private parking lot meeting
the requirements of the city
Travel demand management programs (if any)
Any other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development request.
The decision maker shall not approve an exception to the general office parking standard unless it:
Does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between
or among existing or future uses in the vicinity
Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street of the proposed increased
parking by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent
feasible
Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact of such additional parking on the surrounding
neighborhood
Creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation
Creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features
Maintains handicap parking ratios in compliance with current AADAG requirements
For projects located in D, L-M-N, M-M-N and C-C zone districts, conforms with the established
street and alley block patterns, and places parking lots across the side or to the rear of buildings
Is supported by a travel demand management program which has been submitted to and
approved by the city.
ATTACHMENT 4 - TDM Checklist
TDM Checklist Overview
The proposed checklist rates developments on the degree to which they are TDM and transit supportive.
Points are assigned based on the level of transit service available, whether cycling and pedestrian amenities
are provided, and whether parking rates and parking facilities support walking and transit use.
The TDM Checklist is intended to be part of the standard development application review process as part of
a Transportation Impact Study (TIS). It could also be used for a zoning by-law amendment, plan of
subdivision, or through the site plan approval process. The TDM Checklist is weighted to encourage sites
with access to transit to provide parking rates consistent with the mode split targets of the Transportation
Master Plan; these transit-supportive parking rates may be lower than the approved zoning by-law
minimums. The Checklist includes several elements to help developments achieve a TDM-supportive
designation for their TIS that complements urban design guidelines, such as locating the building facade
adjacent to the road right-of-way, or by providing:
Preferential carpool spaces
Bike parking
Car sharing spaces
Mixed uses with retail, commercial and food services
Structured, higher-density parking
Shower and change room facilities for active commuters
This list could grow if the recommended TDM program is implemented and new services or options are
added. The Checklist also encourages developers to provide trip reduction incentives such as subsidized
transit passes, emergency ride home services, and online carpool matching. A TIS satisfactory to the City
would use customized combinations of these options to complete the TDM Checklist and to demonstrate
that the proposed development is transit-supportive.
Benefits of the TDM Checklist
Provides transportation choice – the proposed TDM strategy will support the City’s strategic objective
to provide transportation choice and to support sustainable and vibrant urban spaces. The proposed
strategy will encourage new developments to consider all modes of travel and to consider reducing the
traffic impact of their site and related parking provisions.
Promotes compact development – reductions in parking supply will ensure that new developments use
space more efficiently. More compact development will result in an improved urban form that is more
walkable.
Improves healthy active living – the proposed TDM strategy will promote the use of urban design
elements in new developments that encourage active transportation (i.e. walking and cycling) by
permitting reductions in vehicle parking location and supply.
Supports transit use and transit development – future developments surrounding the MAX Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) should be constructed with transit-supportive parking rates to maximize the return on
investment. The TDM Checklist supports the goal of transit-supportive parking rates in appropriate
areas, such as the BRT stations, and TOD Overlay Zone in general as well as the Downtown area and in
doing so, supports area transit use.
Supports City Plan and Transportation Master Plan objectives – the proposed TDM checklist as well as
the TOD Overlay Zone parking requirement adjustments will support the City’s adopted policies for
sustainable planning and development.
Educational Component – regardless of whether or not a developer uses/ implements the voluntary
Trip Reduction Incentives included in the TDM Checklist, their introduction to the development review
process has an important educational component about the TDM options that are available.
Challenges of the TDM Checklist
Perceived economic development impacts – transit-supportive parking rates effectively reduce peak
period traffic and encourage compact land development. However, business owners often perceive
abundant parking supply as an important factor in attracting business. As such, there is resistance to
limiting the amount of parking provided by the development industry even if much of the surplus
parking goes unused.
Increased demand for staff resources – the implementation of any TDM parking or trip reduction
policies will create additional demand for municipal staff time and resources. However, the impact of
new policies is reduced when they are implemented through a TIS process as much of the analysis is
essentially outsourced. The TIS process is typically limited to developments with a substantial impact on
the transportation system, which effectively reduces the number of proposals immediately affected. It
will also provide the Region and the Area Municipalities an opportunity to refine the process as it is
expanded over time.
Challenges enforcing and implementing trip reduction incentives – new building owners and the
changing needs of tenants makes transferring and implementing TDM strategies at specific locations
challenging. Enforcing TDM strategies through the planning process provides some level of control
compared to entirely voluntary programs. Linking this process with a well-developed TDM program will
improve the process by providing additional resources and assistance. The recommended TDM program
will also make it easier to implement TDM programming, provide new program offerings over time and
be a resource during ownership changes to transfer TDM program benefits to new tenants.
Site Address: Site Context:
Date: Parking Requirement: TOD Overlay Zone
Applicable Parking Reduction:
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist and Parking Management Worksheet are not
designed for residential properties, but can be used to inform mixed-use developments.
TABLE A Site Access
In creating an environment that supports pedestrian and cycling activity, the public realm must be accessible, safe, and comfortable to
encourage movement on the street and in the surrounding area(s). These facilities and features should encourage walking and cycling.
Points Features Yes N/A
A1
2
Development incorporates functional building entrances that are oriented to public space or to
locations where pedestrians and transit users arrive from such as a street, square, park or plaza.
A2
1
External to site: Continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of all adjacent public streets
(over and above requirement)
Internal to site: Pedestrian walkways (1.5m min width) are provided through large parking areas to
link the building with the public street sidewalk system (over and above requirement)
A3 3 Non-residential: development provides secure bike storage for 4% of the building occupants.
A4 4 Shower and change facilities for employees provided on-site consistent with LEED requirements.
A5 2 Provision of active uses at-grade along street frontages.
Category Max = 10 Total Points Applicable = 10
Score =
TABLE B Public Transportation Access
The availability and proximity of convenient public transit service with direct pedestrian linkages to the building will provide viable travel
options for employees, visitors and residents.
Points Features Yes N/A
B1 1
Bus shelters with seating are provided at the transit stop immediately adjacent to the development
in consultation with Transportation Planning at the Region of Waterloo
B2 1
Information regarding public transit routes, schedules and fares are provided in an accessible and
visible location on site and in adjacent bus stops
B3a 5 Located within 1600 yards of a Rapid Transit Station
B3b
3
Located within 1200 yards of a bus service with headways of 15 min or less or is located in a
designated mixed use corridor or node. Note: Points are awarded for either B3a, B3b or B3c
only. Please choose whichever represents the highest order of transit.
B3c
1
Located within 800 yards of a bus service with headways of 16 min to 30 min. Note: Points are
awarded for either B3a, B3b or B3c only. Please choose whichever represents the highest
order of transit.
Category Max = 5 Total Points Applicable = 5
Score =
TABLE C Parking
Vehicle parking facilities can affect the character, travel mode and cost of a development. Reducing parking supply to match expected
demand can a have a positive influence on the selection of alternative travel modes.
Points Features Yes N/A
C1
24
Utilizes reduced parking supply consistent with the TDM Parking Management Worksheet. Contact
City of Fort Collins Planning to determine whether the Worksheet is applicable to your
development. Note: Points are awarded for either C1, C2, or C3 only. Please choose
whichever applies with the highest value.
C2
24
Includes allowances for shared parking in mixed-use zones. Note: Points are awarded for C1, C2,
C9 10
50% to 75% of parking is located underground or in a structure
C10 15
75% of parking or more is located underground or in a structure
C11 3
Parking spaces provided off-site on a lot within 600 yards of the lot containing such use.
Category Max = 25 Total Points Applicable = 25
Score =
TABLE D Trip Reduction Incentives
A formal TDM plan will identify specific initiatives that will be initiated in order to encourage reduced single occupant vehicle travel.
Points Features Yes N/A
D1 2 The building owner/occupant will provide a ride matching service for car/vanpooling
D2 2 The building owner/occupant will provide emergency ride home options
D3 5
The building owner/occupant will provide subsidized transit passes for all occupants for a period of
two years
D4 5 The building owner/occupant agrees to charge for parking as an unbundled cost to occupants
D5
2
The building owner/occupant agrees to provide reduced cost for users of car/van pool, bicycle,
moped/motorcycle spaces
D6
10
The building owner/occupant has prepared a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo
and the Area Municipality that targets a 10% reduction in peak hour trips using forecast trip
generation with status quo travel characteristics
D7 5 The employer has provided flexible working hours, telework or shift work arrangements.
D8
14
The development agrees to join _______ (TMA) that provides the same services outlined under
items D1, D2, D6
D9
2
The development includes mixed uses (i.e. retail, commercial or food services, daycares, or other
complementary uses) on-site or located within 800 yards.
Category Max = 25 Total Points Applicable = 25
Score =
TABLE E Checklist Summary
For each item, a “Yes” answer is equivalent to the points as indicated in the section. N/A sections should be explained in an attachment to
this table. The score for each section is reflected as a percentage and calculated by dividing the points by the “Total Applicable”.
Category
Minimum
Requirement
Total
Applicable
Points Scored
Comments
Pedestrian &
Cyclist Orientation
24
10
Public Transit
Access 5
Parking 25
SUB-TOTAL 40
Trip Reduction
Incentives
25
OVERALL
TOTAL 65 65
Parking Management Worksheet
Site Address: Site Context:
Date: Worksheet No.:
"Downtown Parking District” - (DPD) area classification includes downtown Fort Collins.
"TOD Overlay Zone" (TOD) classification is applied to sites within the define TOD Overlay Zone within the City of Fort Collins
"Other" classification applies to all other sites
Please highlight the cell percentages applicable to your development under the appropriate
classification. Please note that the Parking Management Worksheet and the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Checklist are not designed for residential properties, but can be used for mixed-
use developments. Local municipalities are the decision-making bodies with respect to
consideration of parking reductions below Zoning By-law requirements.
TABLE A Pedestrian and Cyclist Orientation
In creating an environment that supports pedestrian and cycling activity, the public realm must be accessible, safe, and
comfortable to encourage movement on the street and in the surrounding area(s). These facilities and features should
encourage walking and cycling.
Features DPD TOD Other
A1
Development incorporates functional building entrances that are oriented
to public space or to locations where pedestrians and transit users arrive
from such as a street, square, park or plaza.
1%
1%
1%
A2
Continuous sidewalks (1.5m min. width) are provided along both sides of
all adjacent public streets and pedestrian walkways (1.5m min width) are
provided through large parking areas to link the building with the public
street sidewalk system
0%
0%
1%
A3
Non-Residential: Development provides secure bike storage for 4% of the
building occupants 2% 2% 1%
A4
Shower and change facilities for employees provided on-site consistent
with LEED requirements.
1%
1%
1%
A5 Provision of active uses at-grade along street frontages. 1% 1% 1%
Category Maximum 4% 4% 4%
Available Parking Reduction
TABLE B Public Transportation Access
The availability and proximity of convenient public transit service with direct pedestrian linkages to the building will
provide viable travel options for employees, visitors and residents.
Features DPD TOD Other
B1
Bus shelters with seating are provided at the transit stop immediately
adjacent to the development, in consultation with Grand River Transit /
transit provider
0%
0%
1%
B2
Information regarding public transit routes, schedules and fares are
provided in an accessible and visible location on site and in adjacent bus
stops
0%
0%
B3c
Located within 800 yards of a bus service with headways of 15 min to 30
min. Note: Points are awarded for either B3a, B3b or B3c only. Please
choose whichever represents the highest order of transit.
-
-
1%
Category Maximum 24% 12% 5%
Available Parking Reduction
TABLE C
Parking
Vehicle parking facilities can affect the character, travel mode and cost of a development. Reducing parking supply to
match expected demand can have a positive influence on the selection of alternative travel modes.
Features DPD TOD Other
C1
Provides priority parking for carpooling/vanpooling participants equivalent
to 5% of employee spaces 0% 0% 5%
C2
Commercial Uses: Provide car-share spaces equivalent to 2% of building
occupants 2% 2% 0%
C3
Implements paid parking system on all or part of the site (e.g. parking
permits, paid parking zones near main entrances) 2% 2% 1%
C4 Parking is not located on major street frontage. 0% 0% 1%
C5 25% to 50% of parking is located underground or in a structure 2% 1% 0%
C6 50% to 75% of parking is located underground or in a structure 4% 2% 0%
C7 75% of parking or more is located underground or in a structure 5% 3% 0%
Category Maximum 6% 4% 6%
Available Parking Reduction
TABLE D
Trip Reduction Incentives
A formal TDM plan will identify specific initiatives that will be initiated in order to encourage reduced single occupant
vehicle travel.
Features DPD TOD Other
D1
The building owner/occupant will provide a ride matching service for
car/vanpooling 0% 0% 1%
D2 The building owner/occupant will provide emergency ride home options 3% 2% 1%
D3
The building owner/occupant will provide subsidized transit passes for all
occupants for a period of two years 10% 4% 2%
D4
The building owner/occupant agrees to charge for parking as an separate
cost to occupants 10% 5% 2%
D5
The building owner/occupant agrees to provide reduced cost for users of
car/van pool, bicycle, moped/motorcycle spaces 0% 0% 1%
D6
The development agrees to join _________ (TMA) that provides the
same services outlined under items D1 and D2 9% 6% 4%
Category Maximum 23% 11% 7%
Available Parking Reduction
TABLE E Parking Reduction Summary
Please indicate the total reduction available based upon Tables A through D above.
Category
Reduction
Achieved
Maximum Achievable
Reduction
Comments
1
2
TABLE of CONTENTS
Contents
Introduction and Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Planning Context – Building on Adopted Community Policy ................................................................................................ 6
Parking Requirements Reform – The Scholarly Debate ....................................................................................................... 16
Triple Bottom Line Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 35
Best Practices Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
Peer City Reviews ................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................................................... 50
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis ………………………………………………..67
Alternatives Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 67
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................. 71
References .............................................................................................................................................................................
81
Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 83
3
Introduction and Project Purpose
Background:
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone primarily consists of the
commercial districts in the College Avenue and
Mason Street Corridors, Downtown and the CSU
Campus areas. The purpose of the TOD Overlay
Zone is to encourage transit-supported,
compact, walkable infill and redevelopment
projects. Adopted in 2006-07 the TOD Overlay
Zone standards removed minimum parking
requirements for mixed-use and multi-family
dwellings. The intent was to incentivize
redevelopment on challenging infill sites, show
commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
investment, and to encourage urban densities
as a result of the Growth Management Area
(GMA). The amount of parking was expected to
be driven by market demand, balancing the
need to provide adequate parking as an
amenity, with the constraints of maximizing
development potential on difficult infill sites.
Problem Statement:
In 2013, as development activity increased in
the TOD Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning
Board and the City Council expressed concerns
with an increasing number of multi-family and
mixed-use housing projects with a student-
oriented housing emphasis. The concerns include a perceived lack of development-provided
parking spaces in relation to the parking demand they are generating and, in turn, potentially
leading to spill-over parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Concerns have also been expressed
about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density in the TOD zone.
The City has the ability to require additional parking as it relates to neighborhood compatibility,
however the tools to determine the parking demand are not in place and thus the City does not
have an objective measure on which to base such a requirement. 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 non-TOD 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
4
assistance of an expert consultant, are conducting a TOD Overlay Zone Parking Study (this report)
that will result in a plan to implement permanent comprehensive parking requirements based on an
evaluation of parking utilization information and best practices.
Project Objectives:
1. Implement parking standards in the Land Use Code (“LUC” or “Code”) for multi-family and
mixed-use residential and commercial development in the TOD Overlay Zone.
a. Ensure parking standards are in conformance with the community vision as outlined in
City Plan, the Parking Plan, the Transportation Master Plan and the Mason Corridor Plan,
in regards to transit-oriented development and neighborhood compatibility.
b. Explore a comprehensive approach to TOD Overlay Zone parking requirements.
c. Base standards on data collected and best practices for a community the size of Fort
Collins.
2. Engage community stakeholders, specifically residents and business owners in and adjacent
to the TOD Overlay Zone and the Fort Collins Parking Advisory Board, through a thorough
outreach process in which issues are discussed, accepted best practices are reviewed and
alternatives are presented for feedback.
3. Establish a policy foundation for parking in the TOD Overlay Zone as an amendment to the
existing Parking Plan.
4. Evaluate the options of parking impact fees or parking in-lieu fees.
5
Executive Summary
To be completed when recommendations are finalized.
6
Planning Context – Building on Adopted Community Policy
Introduction
This section of the report is designed to give the reader a summary of the major City planning
documents that provide the planning framework and context in which this specific project is being
evaluated. It is important to note that this planning work is building on work that has been previously
vetted through significant community discussion and is based upon adopted City policy.
PLAN FORT COLLINS
The name Plan Fort Collins refers to the process to
prepare major updates to two key planning documents:
City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.
CITY PLAN
City Plan is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort
Collins, and illustrates the vision for Fort Collins in the next
twenty five years and beyond. The initial formulation of
City Plan began in 1995 and involved a two-year process
working with City Council, an advisory committee, City
staff, a consulting team, and the public. The original
creation of City Plan included extensive public
involvement including the use of a visual preference
survey. City Plan was adopted in 1997. Subsequent
updates to City Plan were initiated in 2002 and adopted
in 2004.
For the City’s comprehensive plan to function over time,
periodic updates are necessary to respond to significant
trends or changes in the economic, physical, social, or
political conditions of Fort Collins.
These previous planning efforts focused on identifying the future size and character of Fort Collins,
and also included updates to reflect changes to and new trends in the community.
7
Transportation Master Plan
The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a long-term vision document that defines the long-term
multimodal transportation system that Fort Collins desires in the future, and also serves as a
comprehensive reference guide regarding transportation issues. Both documents provide policy
directions for decision-making, and set forth priority actions to make the vision a reality. The TMP
serves to document the vision for the long-term multimodal transportation system that will support the
Fort Collins community into the future. The City of Fort Collins first developed a TMP in concert with
the development of City Plan in 1997. The TMP defined the future of Fort Collins in terms of
transportation, providing policy direction for how decisions regarding the implementation of the
multi-modal transportation system should occur. It also set priorities for implementing projects to meet
short-term deficiencies while working towards the ultimate transportation system the community
desires.
The TMP, like City Plan, requires review and update every five years. In 2004 an effort to update the
Transportation Master Plan began, but because of significant changes and additions to numerous
areas it essentially became a new plan. Many of the goals, principles, and policies that were
developed in 1997 remained valid, but the 2004 plan focused more on implementation of those
goals, principles, and policies.
The plan provides priority actions and strategies for
implementing projects and services to meet short-
term needs while working toward the long-range
goals for the ultimate transportation system the City
and community strive to achieve. Actions are
identified that will happen concurrent with the
adoption of the plan in the short term (1-2 years)
and longer term (3+ years). The Transportation
Master Plan process also includes updates to the
City’s Master Street Plan (MSP), multimodal
transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and
the Pedestrian Plan.
8
Innovate, Sustain,
Connect
Innovate
The citizens of Fort Collins wish to advance their future
in a positive and vital way, and City government,
educational, and other institutions, as well as the
private sector, have always been willing to lead and
serve as models for other communities. Our vision
reflects our desire to remain innovative, world-class
leaders.
Sustain
The basic tenets of sustainability serve as the guiding
principles for our vision and act as a foundation
underpinning all components of each plan.
Connect
Being a “connected community” extends beyond the
physical connections implied by our transportation
system. It encompasses a community that is connected
technologically and socially as well.
Our vision embraces a City that provides safe and
efficient facilities for all modes of travel. It also
encourages expansion of technological infrastructure to
serve and connect the community, increasing access to
information and fostering better communication
between residents, businesses, institutions, and local
government.
Finally, our vision promotes social connectivity through
ongoing support of community organizations and
volunteerism and by encouraging development
patterns and creating gathering places that attract
people and promote social interaction.
Current values and goals are identified and
summarized in the Plan Fort Collins Snapshot
Report. The 2010 update also folds in and reflects
other recent planning efforts and policy
documents such as the Economic Action Plan,
Climate Action Plan, Water Conservation Plan,
Cultural Plan, Parks and Recreation Policy Plan,
and many others. Related plans and policies are
addressed within each of the seven topic-based
chapters in this plan.
Community Vision - Innovate, Sustain, Connect
The City identified in its previous plans the
community values and critical issues for building a
framework that combines traditional planning
principles and land development practices
through planning directives and a community
vision. A vision represents a desired future as
defined by the community. Three major themes of
Plan Fort Collins provide direction for the vision for
the next 25 years and beyond: Innovate, Sustain,
and Connect.
9
Downtown Parking Strategic Plan (2013)
The Parking Plan, updated in 2013, addresses a wide range
of parking program elements including parking
management strategies, organization, planning, operations,
communications, technology, and others.
As noted in the Executive Summary of the Parking Plan, “The
field of parking management has advanced significantly in
recent years with new programmatic approaches, best
practices, and technology solutions that can transform and
expand the positive role that parking can play in helping
communities achieve success.”
The primary objective of this planning effort was to align
parking system philosophies and programs to be more
supportive of the larger community’s strategic goals. There
are many opportunities for parking to be integrated into
larger community and economic development strategies.
The development of effective and collaborative
relationships between parking management and Downtown
stakeholders can transform and greatly enhance the vitality of Downtown environments.
Parking is one of those activities that literally provide millions of “customer touches” each year.
Improvements to the ease of use of parking and parking customer service can have a dramatic
impact on how a community is perceived and on the success of community businesses and the
livability of its neighborhoods.
This strategic approach offers the City an opportunity to expand the way parking is viewed and its
important role in creating vibrant, healthy communities and business districts. The Plan promotes the
philosophy that parking needs to be focused on overall Downtown access rather than parking in
isolation. In other words, parking is integral to a variety of important community access strategies,
rather than a discipline in isolation from the larger transportation system. This broader focus on
“access management” while keeping a focus on the importance of parking specific issues provides
a more balanced and sustainable community transportation system.
In summary, by evolving the parking program to better support the overall Downtown and
community development objectives, the Parking Plan creates opportunities to better align parking
and economic development, delivers a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to
community access strategies, and establishes more collaborative relationships with related agencies
and community partners.
The Downtown Strategic Plan (2004) led to improvements in Downtown parking, but conditions have
changed and there are a number of issues yet to be resolved. The Parking Plan developed in 2013
10
focuses on unsolved problems and high-priority concerns identified by staff, the consultant team,
and community stakeholders.
The following list provides some examples of these issues and concerns:
As housing, jobs, and commercial activity grows in Downtown, what are the best ways to
manage the supply and demand for parking?
Do we need more parking infrastructure? If so, how do we pay for it?
What is the best way to educate and engage the business community and Downtown
management on the range of new parking management options and their benefits as they
relate to supporting and enhancing a vibrant Downtown?
How can the management of parking also support the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and
bus riders?
Are the City’s parking policies regarding new development adequate to achieve the City’s
higher-level goals for sustainability, urban design, and overall mobility management?
How can customer service regarding parking options be improved?
What new policies are needed to address the impacts of parking in neighborhoods near
Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU)?
Midtown Plan (2013)
The Midtown Plan provides a vision for Midtown as a vital corridor,
with a mix of uses and activities that will serve a broad spectrum of
the community. It envisions a district with a distinct identity that
distinguishes it from other parts of the city, and that will ultimately
be a destination in its own right.
The plan promotes streets that are inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists, with attractive street edges, and active urban plazas
and spaces. Signature features, including public art and civic
facilities, will be located strategically throughout the area and will
serve as identifiers for smaller sub-areas within Midtown and invite
year-round use.
The vision for Midtown is that of an urban neighborhood of choice
for many residents and an important economic generator for the
city. It also should serve abutting residential neighborhoods and
be conveniently accessible from them with the improvements of
existing and addition of new streets throughout Midtown.
11
The Midtown Plan incorporates the
MAX line as a central transportation
spine. New development along this
spine will be of high quality,
sustainable urban form that supports
a pedestrian-first environment and
fronts onto MAX instead of turning its
back onto it. Key intersections will
connect pedestrian, bike and auto
traffic, from College Avenue to MAX
with identifiable streetscapes,
signage and wayfinding.
College Avenue will continue to be
a major north-south regional
connection, but new development
will be more urban in nature and
buildings will address College with
parking in back, rather than the
reverse that exists today.
The Framework Map, from the
Midtown plan (right), graphically
illustrates the improvements to be
made for achieving this new vision.
12
Background, Historical Context and Existing Conditions Review
Parking, on and off-street, is governed by the provisions of the City’s Land Use Code. Specifically, the
City regulates parking through Article 3, Section 3.2.2 of the City’s adopted code which contains
minimum off-street parking requirements for individual sites based on the land uses.
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, Article 3, General Development Standards - Access, Circulation
and Parking
Like all cities, the City of Fort Collins has an extensive land use code governing land use and
development standards. The current code, as amended, was adopted in 1997.
As noted within Section 1.2.2 of the Code, there are 15 guiding principles whose purpose is to
“improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens.”
Under the Land Use Code, Article 3 (General Development Standards), one can find sub-division 3.2
(Site Planning and Design Standards) and Section 3.22 (Access, Circulation and Parking). The primary
purpose of these sections of the land use code is to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects
of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for
vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding
areas.
This section also sets forth parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking stalls,
landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of drive-in facilities and loading
zones.
The general standard relative to parking and site circulation is summarized below:
“The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the
movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed
development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall
contribute to the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system must
provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and security as
defined by the standards in this Section. The on-site bicycle system must connect to the city’s
on-street bikeway network. Connections to the off-road trail system shall be made, to the
extent reasonably feasible.”
The complete Section 3.22 (Access, Circulation and Parking) of the current zoning code can be
found on the City’s website (http://www.fcgov.com/building/pdf/usematrixmarch2012.pdf).
13
Parking Requirements
Of particular interest to this study is Section 3.2.2. (K). This portion of the Code spells out the required
number of off-Street parking spaces by type of use. Sub-division (G) provides for Shared Parking
standards. The contents of these sections are summarized below.
(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:
* 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 provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the
following table (Note: the following standards were adopted as part of the “stop-gap”
provisions, Ord. 121, 2013):
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 subparagraph 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
14
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).
2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall be determined
based on a 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.
15
Shared Parking (3.2.2.(G) provides standards for the reduction of required off-street parking for
mixed use projects. Specifically, mixed use developments (retail, office, institutional, and
entertainment) which create staggered peak parking demand periods may share parking
facilities. However, parking requirements for residential uses cannot be shared.
Development Review Process
Proposed projects and developments are required to undergo review and approval through the
City’s adopted development review process.
Development review exists in part to ensure that each new development or piece of the puzzle is in
alignment with our community’s vision for Fort Collins, as stated in City Plan and the Land Use Code
(LUC).
In addition, the community has adopted a philosophy that development should “pays its own way.”
This means private-sector developers are designing and constructing many improvements which will
become a part of the public infrastructure maintained by the City. So another purpose of
development review process is to ensure consistent and good quality public improvements.
The City of Fort Collins has developed a helpful “Development Review Guide”, that can be found on-
line, as a tool to help those new to the development review process gain a broad overview of the
scope and specific steps involved in the development review process in Fort Collins.
City Council Ordinance 121, 2013
The 2013 city council adopted “stop-gap” ordinance (Ord. 121, 2013) reinstating minimum parking
requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone set the new minimum requirement at 70% of the existing non-
TOD standard with an alternative compliance element that permits a parking impact study to show a
reduction in parking demand.
The parking analysis data developed by the City to inform Ordinance 121,2013 can be found in
Appendix A.
16
Parking Requirements Reform – The Scholarly Debate
This section of the report explores several important topics that are very relevant
to this study. There is in fact a serious and significant national discussion
occurring related to benefits and problems associated with the ubiquitous use of
minimum parking requirements across the US and the world. Professor Donald
Shoup, author of the “High Cost of Free Parking” and a Distinguished Professor of
Urban Planning at UCLA, has been led the charge in this area; promoting how
better parking policies can improve cities, the economy, and the environment.
Shoup recommends that cities should charge fair market prices for on-street
parking, use the meter revenue to finance added public services in the metered
neighborhoods, and remove off-street parking requirements.
Recently several other noted academicians and planners have weighed in on the discussion of the
importance of parking in general, expanding the research related to minimum parking requirements
and proposing new options for how Cities should approach these issues. We will focus on three
publications in particular. The first is a book entitled “Parking Management” published by Mr. Todd
Litman, founder of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The second is a recently published book by
Richard Willson entitled: “Parking Reform Made Easy”. The third is a book by Eran Ben-Joseph
entitled: “Re-Thinking A Lot – The Design and Culture of Parking”.
However, before we launch into that discussion, there is another key issue worthy of exploration – the
surprising importance of parking to Transit Oriented Developments.
Parking and Transit Oriented Developments
The following is an excerpt from an article by Mark Gander, Principal Planner; Director of Urban Mobility and
Development at AECOM and a member of the Board of Directors for the Green Parking Council.
“There are approximately 250 million registered vehicles (2010) in the United States. When these
vehicles are not in use, which accounts for more than 90 percent of their time, they must be
parked. Because of this, off-street parking space availability is ubiquitous; its footprint is vast in
scale. As MIT Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning Eran Ben-Joseph recently noted, in
some U.S. cities, parking lots cover more than a third of the land area, becoming the single most
salient landscape feature of our built environment. This ubiquity is further compounded because
cities require parking everywhere, yet ironically its absence is noticed most.”
“The ubiquity of parking is not accidental: Parking matters. It plays an important role in the success of
cities, communities and places as well as in the development of mixed-use projects and sustainable
transportation. Parking supply and pricing often have a direct impact on the ability to create
compact, healthy communities. Too much parking at residential properties correlates with more
automobile ownership, more vehicle miles traveled, more congestion, more carbon emissions, and
higher housing costs. It also results in lost development opportunity because excess parking area
17
could have been used instead for residential or commercial development or public realm uses such
as parks and plazas.”
Parking also has both direct and indirect environmental consequences. Direct environmental
impacts include excessive land consumption, increased storm water flows, degraded water quality,
and exacerbated heat island effects. Additionally, parking structures themselves use substantial
amounts of natural resources and energy to construct and require on-going maintenance to
operate. In many cases parking structures are seen as unsightly when they are not internalized in
mixed-use buildings or wrapped by liner buildings. Parking also indirectly affects the environment
because it influences how and where people choose to travel. Where free and ample parking is
provided, people make the rational choice to drive almost everywhere — and these areas register
more vehicle miles of travel per capita with resulting increases in greenhouse gases and other
pollutants.
Striking a balance between parking supply and development is a crucial challenge in developing
the character of transit-oriented development (TOD). Residents in TOD projects are twice as likely not
to own a car as other US households. They’re also two to five times more likely to commute by transit
than others in the region. On the other hand, residents will need access to cars even if not on a daily
basis and commercial establishments require some amount of parking to service their non-walking
clientele. In many cases, developers will be unable to secure financing unless parking is provided.
Unfortunately, many communities have simply applied conventional parking ratios to TOD
projects. Because such standards have a suburban bias and are based largely on low-density single
land uses they limit the expected community benefits of TOD, and possibly, lead to project failure.
Transit Oriented Development includes four foundational elements:
Development around transit that is dense and compact, at least relative to its surroundings;
A rich mix of land uses—housing, work, and other destinations, creating a lively place and
balancing peak transit flows;
A great public realm—sidewalks, plazas, bike paths, a street grid that fits, and buildings that
address the street at ground level; and
A new deal on parking—less of it; shared wherever possible; energy efficient and designed
properly.
Right sizing parking for TOD necessitates a multipronged approach to understanding the existing and
projected parking utilization and available supply in and around a TOD project area as well as the
projected demand for new parking once the project is completed. Conducting a diagnostic parking
study that is comprehensive and aligned with mobility choices is essential to this effort. Once the
facts about demand, price, utilization, built form/development pattern, and household
characteristics are understood, then appropriate strategies can be employed.
18
Key elements include understanding differences among markets, unbundling or separating the full
cost of parking from the
associated use, and
reducing (or eliminating)
minimum parking
requirements for certain
land uses or certain
areas. Understanding the
parking uses by market
and type then make it
possible to look for
opportunities for
implementation of a wide
range of measures from
new technology (e.g.
smart parking), to specific
policies and physical
design modification to consolidate and locate parking more efficiently.
To ensure that parking meets the needs of a TOD project, while not impacting TOD’s benefits, there
are a number of strategies that municipalities can employ working in conjunction with developers to
provide the appropriate amount of parking. These strategies can be grouped into several categories,
including reduction; demand; design; and pricing. Each of these categories is discussed briefly
below.
Reduction
Given the research, along with the information developed by a parking supply and demand study,
municipalities should make every effort to reduce the parking requirements for TOD projects.
Eliminating parking minimums and instead employing parking maximums for TOD projects will help
decrease parking oversupply. Similarly, requiring shared parking where multiple developers combine
parking needs into one shared parking lot or structure may also help eliminate an oversupply of
parking.
Demand
Reducing the need for car travel is critical to decreasing parking demand. Municipalities or
developers should consider establishing car sharing programs where multiple users have access to a
fleet of cars when they need them. Similarly, municipalities and transit agencies could increase
incentives for using public transportation, including providing subsidized transit passes, establishing
residential parking programs for adjacent neighborhoods backed by parking enforcement, and
constructing bicycle parking facilities.
19
Design
Designing for pedestrians is an important element to right-sizing parking. This requires reducing or
eliminating design elements that hamper pedestrian use such as the number and size of curb cuts. It
also requires adding elements that provide for greater pedestrian safety and aesthetic
appeal. These elements might include constructing pedestrian walkways separated from parking
and roads, wrapping parking behind existing buildings, designing the first level of parking structures to
include other uses such as stores and restaurants, and adding public amenities like art space or
public plazas which incorporate green infrastructure.
Pricing
Pricing is another strategy that can be used to influence how and where parking is used and located
within a transit station area. On-street parking can be priced to encourage availability of on-street
spots for preferred populations such as short term customers. In this case, the cost of parking for 15 or
30 minutes near shops located in the transit station area might be minimal while parking prices for
more than 30 minutes is set quite high. Another strategy is to price parking to reflect parking
desirability, i.e. spaces closest to activity hubs and on-street are priced higher than spaces at the
downtown fringe and parking garages.
While increasing transit ridership, walking and biking are essential to establishing sustainable and
livable communities, the car will continue as the principle mobility choice for years to come. Given
this circumstance, municipalities and developers will have to provide parking for TOD projects and
the surrounding area, but should do so in a way that is appropriately sized and located.
20
A Growing Interest in Parking Requirement Reform
In the graphic below, architect and designer Seth Goodman shows how parking and living spaces
compare in major cities across the U.S. A more localized version of this research concentrated on the
Northwest US is also available as is research on other land uses compared to parking spaces.
21
The research that focused on the northwest US challenges the common assumption that smaller cities
behave more like suburbs in terms of parking requirements. It’s actually a mixed bag. Spokane,
Washington and Eugene, Oregon all mimic the requirements of larger cities. Fort Collins is another
good example of this. We should not take for granted that a relatively small population (around
200,000 in the city proper) automatically translates to higher parking requirements. These examples
demonstrate that cities don’t need Manhattan-
like conditions to ease up on parking minimums.
In Auckland, New Zealand, their City Council is
debating whether to include traditional parking
minimum requirements as an element of their
Unitary Plan (comparable to City Comprehensive
Plans in the US). The ad to the right illustrates how
some advocacy groups are trying to influence the
debate.
In the following pages we examine the origins of
parking requirements, the impediments to
change, and how these policies can be reformed.
22
The Case For and Case against Reforming Parking Requirements
Background on Traditional Minimum Parking Requirements
According to research published by professors Donald Shoup, Richard Willson and others, in many
instances, efforts to accommodate parking have overextended actual need. The approach used
by many cities to establish minimum parking requirements (typically a generic formula based on
satisfying the maximum demand for free parking). Although this practice allows city planners to err on
the side of caution, it has some serious drawbacks. In practical terms, this practice increases the cost
of development and creates disincentives with respect to smart growth development and
redevelopment. In addition, generic parking requirements create excess parking spaces that
consume land and resources, encourage automobile use and associated pollution, and degrade
water quality. The oversupply of parking is of particular concern for smart growth development in
urban areas where the existing parking infrastructure can be better utilized and parking alternatives,
such as shared parking and increased use of transit and pedestrian modes, can be more readily
implemented.
With the shifting trend toward urban revitalization over the past decade, the timing is opportune for
instituting changes in parking requirements and transportation behavior. An important way to reduce
the demand for parking and the need to supply parking to meet maximum demand is to provide
transportation choices. This can be achieved by reducing the supply of parking in areas where
transportation choices exist and by providing incentives for making other choices. Such changes will
encourage infill redevelopment and reduce vehicle miles traveled, mobile source emissions and
congestion. They will also increase ridership for public transit and, in turn, provide the additional
revenues needed to support public transit improvements.
There are, of course, potential drawbacks to reducing the supply of parking. Lenders, for example,
may be unwilling to approve loans because plans do not meet their minimum parking requirements;
developers may be concerned about the long-term marketability of their property; and residents
may fear that parking will spill over into surrounding residential neighborhoods. Such concerns can be
more readily addressed if:
The factors that affect parking demand are understood;
Walkable, pedestrian-oriented development design is implemented; and
Viable transportation choices exist.
Concerns are also alleviated when developers, employers, and employees are aware of programs
that balance the attractiveness of other transportation choices. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), for example, allows businesses to give their employees up to $100 per month in
tax free transit subsidies. TEA-21 also allows employees who commute by public transit or vanpool to
deduct the cost of commuting from their taxable income if they do not receive a subsidy.
23
Establishing Parking Requirements
On the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) website and in his book on
Parking Management, noted planner and transportation consultant Todd
Litman does a good job of laying out the traditional approach to
establishing parking requirements and makes a strong case for the use of
more flexible and localized criteria in creating zoning codes especially as it
relates to parking requirements.
In setting parking requirements, planners typically use generic standards that
apply to general land use categories (e.g., residential, office, retail). Such
standards have been developed and published by professional
organizations, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), based
on experience in many locations. Much of the data on which these
standards are based comes from low-density, single-use developments with limited transportation
choices. Therefore, the generic parking rates cannot take into account the mix of context-sensitive,
community specific variables - density, demographics, availability of transportation choices, or the
surrounding land-use mix - all of which influence the demand for parking and should be reflected in
parking requirements. Instead, requirements are based on the maximum demand for parking, when
parking is provided at no charge to users, and walking, biking, and transit are not available choices.
This formula yields a surplus of parking that is costly for developers to provide, and it subsidizes
personal automobile use and encourages auto use even in areas where convenient transportation
choices exist. Because of the way in which they are typically established, parking requirements are
remarkably consistent across different cities, despite varying levels of economic vitality, population
size, and development density.
Alternatively, parking requirements can be established using methods that are better tailored to
specific development projects. This approach entails careful consideration of the following land use
characteristics that relate to parking demand:
Development type and size.
o Takes into account the specific characteristics of the project.
o Parking demand is influenced by the size of the development (typically measured by
total building square footage), as well as the type of land use (e.g., retail, industrial).
Generic parking formulas address these factors to some extent.
Population and development density.
o Considers the density and demographic characteristics of the people using the
building, including employees, customers, residents, and visitors. Information on income,
car ownership, and age distribution also helps in projecting total parking demand.
Availability of transportation choices.
o Takes into account the modes of transportation available to employees, visitors, and
residents. Proximity of public transportation to a particular development, for example,
will reduce parking demand.
o Walkable neighborhoods and bicycle amenities will also reduce parking demand.
24
Surrounding land use mix.
o Considers the surrounding land uses and density to better understand parking needs,
and evaluates whether overall peak demand is lower than the sum of peak demands
for different uses. This concept takes the timing of parking demand into account in
determining the aggregate demand of multiple uses.
o The type of community in which a development is located will also affect parking
demand. For example, if a project is located in a city’s central business district, the
availability of general use parking will reduce onsite parking demand. On the other
hand, if the development is located in a residential area, on-street parking may be
unacceptable to local residents, increasing the need for off-street parking at the
development.
Land use and demographic information are important tools for establishing project-specific parking
requirements that create a better match of supply and demand for parking than do many generic
requirements.
Moreover, adjusting parking requirements downward to reflect realistic demand helps reduce the
total cost of development, particularly in urban areas. By reducing cost, a potential deterrent to
smart growth development and redevelopment can be removed.
The following table from the VTPI website summarizes a wide range of parking management
strategies and indicates typical reductions in the amount of parking required at a destination, and
whether a strategy helps reduce vehicular traffic, therefore providing congestion, accident and
pollution reduction benefits.
Strategy Description Typical
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Shared Parking Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations. 10-30%
Parking Regulations Regulations favor higher-value uses such as service vehicles,
deliveries, customers, quick errands, and people with special
needs.
10-30%
More Accurate and
Flexible Standards
Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand
in a particular situation.
10-30%
Parking Maximums Establish maximum parking standards. 10-30%
Remote Parking Provide off-site or urban fringe parking facilities. 10-30%
Smart Growth Encourage more compact, mixed, multi-modal development
to allow more parking sharing and use of alternative modes.
10-30% X
Walking and Cycling
Improvements
Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range
of destinations serviced by a parking facility.
5-15% X
25
Increase Capacity of
Existing Facilities
Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space,
smaller stalls, car stackers and valet parking.
5-15% X
Mobility Management Encourage more efficient travel patterns, including changes
in mode, timing, destination and vehicle trip frequency.
10-30% X
Parking Pricing Charge motorists directly and efficiently for using parking
facilities.
10-30% X
Improve Pricing Methods Use better charging techniques to make pricing more
convenient and cost effective.
Varies X
Financial Incentives Provide financial incentives to shift mode, such as cash out. 10-30% X
Unbundle Parking Rent or sell parking facilities separately from building space. 10-30% X
Parking Tax Reform Change tax policies to support parking management
objectives.
5-15% X
Bicycle Facilities Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities. 5-15% X
Improve User Information
and Marketing
Provide convenient and accurate information on parking
availability and price, using maps, signs, brochures and
electronic communication.
5-15% X
Improve Enforcement Insure that parking regulation enforcement is efficient,
considerate and fair.
Varies
Transportation
Management
Associations
Establish member-controlled organizations that provide
transport and parking management services in a particular
area.
Varies X
Overflow Parking Plans Establish plans to manage occasional peak parking demands. Varies
Address Spillover
Problems
Use management, enforcement and pricing to address
spillover problems.
Varies
Parking Facility Design
and Operation
Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve
problems and support parking management.
Varies
Environmental Impacts of Parking
The significant environmental costs associated with parking are not typically factored into
development decisions, and only recently have begun to be considered in setting parking
requirements. Construction of unnecessary impervious surfaces increases the impacts of storm water
runoff, either on the storm sewer system or the surrounding land. Paved surfaces can also result in
water pollution and flooding, resulting in a decline in adjacent property values. Heat islands, or areas
of artificially raised temperatures, also are exacerbated by unnecessary pavement.
26
Consuming land for parking also reduces the land available for green space or other, more
productive development. Land preserved as part of the green infrastructure allows storm water to
percolate into the soil, provides wildlife habitat, provides air quality and noise reduction benefits, and
is aesthetically desirable. Land developed for living, working, and shopping rather than just parking
provides more intensive use. This lowers the demand to develop other land nearby or elsewhere in
the region. Intensifying uses also creates a more supportive environment for transit and walking, and
potentially for bicycling as well.
Providing more parking than demanded, and at artificially low prices, contributes to several harmful
environmental impacts. First, this subsidy of automobile use leads directly to excess driving. This results
in increased auto dependency and air pollution, accidents, and congestion. Second, it indirectly
degrades the attractiveness of walking and biking, by increasing distances between activities and
creating uninteresting routes.
Third, it indirectly undermines the potential for transit service by decreasing the density potential of
development projects.
All of these environmental costs tend to be greater for parking built in green field areas where there is
more inexpensive but ecologically-sensitive open space available and where development densities
are lower thus requiring more and longer automobile trips. Because these environmental costs are
not realized by developers, they do not influence development decisions which are driven primarily
by the direct financial costs that are typically lower in green field areas.
Parking Requirement Reform
The following is an excerpt from the book “Parking Reform Made Easy” by Richard
Wilson. Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., FAICP, is Professor and Chair in the Department
of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona.
Parking requirements in zoning ordinances create one of the most wasteful
elements of transportation and land use systems: unoccupied parking
spaces. Each space requires over 300 square feet of valuable land or
building area, yet many sit empty. Minimum parking requirements at
shopping malls, for example, often lead to sprawling developments
surrounded by large, underused parking lots. Spaces for workplaces may
be well-used during the day but remain unoccupied in the evening
because they are not shared with other land uses.
Sometimes, the parking required is greater than the amount of parking ever used. Parking is overbuilt
and underutilized for two reasons: 1) zoning requires an excessive parking supply, and 2) it prevents
efficient sharing of parking among different land uses. Both reasons reflect a legacy of single-use
zoning and an automobile-first approach to planning. Minimum parking requirements prevent private
developers from responding to market conditions, and lessen developers’ interest in sharing parking
or developing sites that are accessible without driving. Planners sometimes claim that developers
27
The Case FOR Parking Minimum Requirements
Reduce street congestion around the
development site
Avoid parking spillover
Create orderly development patterns
Anticipate possible intensification or changes
in the use of a development
Create a level playing field among developers
Encourage growth of core areas by increasing
parking supply in those areas
Reduce parking management by making the
adjudication of conflicts between property
owners unnecessary
Reduce the demand for public provision of
parking
would build the same amount of parking regardless of regulations, but if that’s true, then why impose
minimum parking requirements in the first place?
Parking requirements should be framed as a means of providing access, not an end. Parking
requirements are only one of several ways to ensure storage for private automobiles. Private auto
transportation, in turn, is only one of several ways to provide access. To carry out parking reform, we
must counteract the decades-old practice of thinking about access in terms of roadways and
parking.
Why Parking Requirements?
Early zoning ordinances did not have parking requirements. Zoning sought to manage the external
impacts of properties, such as when a new building represented a fire hazard to the structure next
door. In the mid-20th century, parking requirements were added to address surface street
congestion caused by patrons driving in search of parking. Planners didn’t foresee that minimum
parking requirements would favor private vehicle travel, lower overall density, and increase traffic.
In surveys conducted in 1995 and again in 2013, local planners in southern California were asked
about parking requirements and found a repetitious justification for minimum parking requirements:
planners wished to “ensure an adequate number of parking spaces.” This response reflects a lack of
critical thinking about fundamental public objectives, such as accessibility, economic development,
and sustainability. The response also reflects an outdated vision of separated land uses, unrestricted
auto-mobility, and plentiful free parking. Thus, many parking requirements are relics that undermine
current land use and transportation goals.
The following tables from Richard Willson’s book summarize the cases both for and against minimum
parking requirements.
The Case AGAINST Parking Minimum Requirements
Encourages private vehicle usage and lengthens
trips
Adversely impacts transit and alternative modes
Reduces development density
Creates inhospitable project design
Thwarts development and economic activity (little
or no direct revenue)
Makes construction of affordable housing more
challenging
Hampers investment in infill development and
adaptive reuse in core areas
Directly and indirectly harms the environment
Lowers physical activity with consequences for
public health
28
Why Change Is Difficult
Some regional and state policymakers recognize that existing parking requirements are excessive,
but most have neglected the issue because parking is a responsibility of local governments. Yet
parking requirements are crucial to accomplishing federal, state, and regional objectives in
transportation, land use, and the environment. There are recent indications that if local governments
do not carry out reforms, states may do it for them. In 2012, a proposal in the California legislature (AB
904) sought to override local parking requirements in transit-rich areas. Legislators subsequently
tabled the proposal, however, showing the power of local governments to resist state interference in
parking policies.
Many local planners know the parking requirement status quo is wrong. They have observed wasted
land, turned away restaurant proposals in historic districts, and seen affordable housing not pencil
out. Despite these undesirable outcomes, planners have not made changes. Why? Some may feel
powerless to change ossified regulations, sensing weak political support and lacking technical
expertise to justify changes. Others may want the negotiating leverage that excessive parking
requirements provide to extract public benefits from developers. Furthermore, planners know that
parking is a key point in NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) resistance to development, so avoiding parking
controversy can help ensure economic development. In effect, cities are addicted to parking
requirements. The addiction is analogous to smoking, where immediate gratification overwhelms
future costs.
Change means freeing ourselves of parking dogma, habits, and golden rules. The old reality dictated
fixed parking requirement ratios and exhibited an unwillingness to deviate from standard practice,
even when it made sense to do so. This approach emphasized precision and uniformity. It
undervalues important considerations of local variability, policy relationships, environmental
capacity, and human behavior. All the land-use plans, design reviews, and streetscape renderings in
the world will not produce desired outcomes if we do not reform parking requirements.
It is important to note that this reticence to address the negative impacts of minimum parking
requirements has not been the issue in the City of Fort Collins, which is known for its progressive
planning and sustainability policies. However, the fact that this study was commissioned is a
testament to the complexity and sensitivities that these complex and interrelated policy issues
generate. In particular, a key issue in this study has to do with timing. With the investment in the
Mason Corridor transit planning and the new MAX Bus Rapid Transit line, a Transit Overlay District was
created in the City. Zoning codes (including parking requirements) were adjusted to reflect the
different transportation dynamics of the corridor as well as a vision for increased development
density and enhanced transit neighborhood urban design characteristics. However, these zoning
changes preceded the actual implementation of the MAX BRT. As a result, new development
projects have proceeded under the revised zoning conditions of the TOD Overlay Zoning district
without the benefit of having the transit component in place.
The development of the Summit project in particular (a fairly large student housing development
near the CSU campus), which planned to provide 676 bedrooms with only 217 parking spaces (471
29
spaces would have been required in the development had been outside the TOD Overlay Zone – a
difference of -254 spaces or -54% of the standard parking requirement)caused a rethinking of the
policy to not to require minimum parking requirements for multi-family development within the TOD
Overlay Zone and a temporary reinstatement of minimum parking requirements, on an adjusted
basis, while the policy could be further examined. This policy adjust will sunset in September 2014
when recommendations from this study will be used to reassess both TOD zoning policies and parking
policies on a more comprehensive basis.
Why Not Eliminate Parking Requirements?
According to national experts, deregulating off-street parking allows markets to determine parking
supply levels and provokes a fresh debate about justifications for public regulations and subsidies for
all transportation modes. Currently, minimum requirements compel the provision of access for driving
and parking, whereas zoning codes seldom impose equivalent requirements for bus, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities. When they do, those requirements have been added more recently and are at
a lower investment level.
Under minimum requirements, even those who do not drive share in paying the cost of parking.
Parking costs are embedded in higher retail prices, lower workplace salaries, higher rents, and the
like. In these ways, most minimum requirements tend to prioritize private vehicles. Eliminating
minimum requirements would begin to level the playing field for all travel modes.
Cities such as Philadelphia, Portland, and Seattle have recently reformed their parking requirements
and adopted limited deregulation. Deregulation shifts the approach from automatically requiring
parking to not supplying it until it is economically justified. It is a big change from standard practice
and should be coupled with programs for shared parking and advanced parking management. Still,
the idea of eliminating minimum parking requirements hasn’t gained traction in many places. Local
officials are often buffeted by demands from residents, storeowners, and employees for more
parking, not less.
City staff researched TOD parking requirements in several other communities including the following:
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.
Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 0.5 – 1.0 space per multi-family dwelling unit
depending on proximity to a transit station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per unit depending
on number of bedrooms outside TOD.
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.
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:
30
o Charge for all covered parking
o Add car-share in the area
o Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking, etc.)
Examples of progressive parking requirements from additional communities are reviewed later in this
report (See Peer Cities section).
Developers Responses to Different Approaches to Parking Requirements
Approaches to parking reform vary from community to community. Accordingly, the table below
shows the range of reform options, including the traditional approach in which the minimum
requirements exceed expected use. At the other end of the spectrum is deregulation, with no
minimum or maximum parking requirements. In many cities and towns, the best approach is
somewhere in between, with deregulation in central business districts and transit-oriented
developments, and reduced minimum requirements in other areas.
31
In Praise of Incrementalism
According to Richard Willson, in the past decade, many cities initiated comprehensive zoning code
reform, and others are planning such efforts. Comprehensive reform efforts allow planners to rethink
parking requirements while they consider the basic organization and functioning of the zoning code.
These efforts also allow planners to bypass the complexity of older codes that have undergone
countless revisions. Ideally, planners will amass enough political clout and financial resources before
undertaking the daunting task of comprehensive zoning code revision.
There are many situations, however, where financial resources and political capital are not sufficient
for comprehensive parking reform. In these cases, an incremental approach can produce good
results. It makes sense to start where there is support, either from elected officials or from community
or district stakeholders. Code reformers can work with these stakeholders and produce parking
requirement reforms, parking overlay zones, or partial deregulation without creating opposition that
might emerge in a citywide effort.
These early successes often build support for larger, more comprehensive efforts. Rather than viewing
pilot projects or experiments as somehow inferior to comprehensive parking reform, we should see
them as effective ways of producing valuable information, testing innovative ideas, and ultimately
generating change.
Rethinking Parking – Another Perspective on the Potential of Parking Lots
In his 2012 book entitled “Rethinking a Lot: The Design and Culture of
Parking”, Eran Ben-Joseph, professor of landscape architecture and urban
planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that parking
lots are so prevalent in our daily life that we should take them more seriously.
There are an estimated 600,000,000 passenger cars in the world, and that
number is increasing every day. So too is Earth's supply of parking spaces. In
some cities, parking lots cover more than one-third of the metropolitan
footprint. It's official: we have paved paradise and put up a parking lot. In
ReThinking a Lot, Eran Ben-Joseph shares a different vision for parking's future.
Parking lots, he writes, are ripe for transformation. After all, as he points out,
their design and function has not been rethought since the 1950s. With this
book, Ben-Joseph pushes the parking lot into the twenty-first century.
32
Can't parking lots be aesthetically pleasing,
environmentally and architecturally responsible? Used
for something other than car storage? Ben-Joseph
shows us that they can. He provides a visual history of
this often ignored urban space, introducing us to some
of many alternative and non-parking purposes that
parking lots have served - from RV campgrounds to
stages for "Shakespeare in the Parking Lot." He shows
us parking lots that are not concrete wastelands but
lushly planted with trees and flowers and beautifully
integrated with the rest of the built environment. With purposeful design, Ben-Joseph argues, parking
lots could be significant public places, contributing as much to their communities as great
boulevards, parks, or plazas. For all the acreage they cover, parking lots have received scant
attention. It's time to change that; it's time to rethink the lot.
The parking lot is the antithesis of nature’s fields and forests, an ugly reminder of the costs of our
automobile-oriented society. But as long as we prefer to get around by car (whether powered by
fossil fuel, solar energy or hydrogen), the parking lot is here to stay.
It’s hard to imagine an alternative. Or is it? I believe that the modern surface parking lot is ripe for
transformation. Few of us spend much time thinking about parking beyond availability and
convenience. But parking lots are, in fact, much more than spots to temporarily store cars: they are
public spaces that have major impacts on the design of our cities and suburbs, on the natural
environment and on the rhythms of daily life. We need to redefine what we mean by “parking lot” to
include something that not only allows a driver to park his car, but also offers a variety of other public
uses, mitigates its effect on the environment and gives greater consideration to aesthetics and
architectural context.
It’s estimated that there are three nonresidential parking spaces for every car in the United States.
That adds up to almost 800 million parking spaces, covering about 4,360 square miles — an area
larger than Puerto Rico. In some cities, like Orlando and Los Angeles, parking lots are estimated to
cover at least one-third of the land area, making them one of the most salient landscape features of
the built world.
Such coverage comes with environmental costs.
The large, impervious surfaces of parking lots
increase storm-water runoff, which damages
watersheds. The exposed pavement increases
the heat-island effect, by which urban regions
are made warmer than surrounding rural areas.
Since cars are immobile 95 percent of the time,
you could plausibly argue that a Prius and a
Hummer have much the same environmental
impact: both occupy the same 9-by-18-foot
rectangle of paved space.
33
A better parking lot might be covered with solar canopies so that it could produce energy while
lowering heat. Or perhaps it would be surfaced with a permeable material like porous asphalt and
planted with trees in rows like an apple orchard, so that it could sequester carbon and clean
contaminated runoff.
The ubiquity of parking lots has also led to an overlooked social dimension: In the United States,
parking lots may be the most regularly used outdoor space. They are public places that people
interact with and use on a daily basis, whether working, shopping, running errands, eating, even
walking — parking lots are one of the few places where cars and pedestrians coexist.
Better parking lots would embrace and expand this role.
Already, many lots provide space for farmers’ markets,
spontaneous games of street hockey, tailgating, even
teenagers’ illicit nighttime parties. This range of activities
suggests that parking lots are a “found” place: they satisfy
needs that are not yet met by our designed surroundings.
Planned with greater intent, parking lots could actually
become significant public spaces, contributing as much to
their communities as great boulevards, parks or plazas. For
instance, the Italian architect Renzo Piano, when
redesigning the Fiat Lingotto factory in Turin, eliminated the
parking lot’s islands and curbs and planted rows of trees in a
dense grid, creating an open, level space under a soft canopy of foliage that welcomes pedestrians
as naturally as it does cars.
The parking lot also has an underutilized architectural
function. A parking lot is the first part of a space you visit or
live next to. It is typically the gateway through which
dwellers, customers, visitors or employees pass before they
enter a building. Architects and designers often discuss the
importance of “the approach” as establishing the tone for
a place, as the setting for the architecture itself. Developers
talk about the importance of “first impressions” to the
overall atmosphere conveyed to the user.
Yet parking lots are rarely designed with this function in
mind. When they are, the effect is stunning. For instance,
the parking lot at the Dia art museum in Beacon, N.Y., created by the artist Robert Irwin and the
architecture firm OpenOffice, was planned as an integral element of the visitor’s arrival experience,
with an aesthetically deft progression from the entry road to the parking lot to an allée that leads to
the museum’s lobby.
34
For something that occupies such a vast amount of land and is used on a daily basis by so many
people, the parking lot should receive more attention than it has. We need to ask: what can a
parking lot be?
In Summary…
The strategies and policy considerations discussed above are alternatives to setting a parking
requirement based on a neighboring city’s requirement or a national average. Fort Collins has long
moved beyond most communities in this regard, however through this study we will be evaluating
options to reassess parking requirements based on specific land use categories (for example
applying differing standards to “rent-by-the-bedroom projects” compared to other multi-family
housing developments based on the demonstrated differences in parking demand generated by this
specific use). We are also assessing varying requirements based on development size or context
features, such as transit accessibility, mixed-land uses, shared parking and overall development
density. The use of alternative compliance mechanisms that provide more context specific data
from which to make rational and measured adjustments to parking requirements are also being
assessed.
Parking reform can also be coordinated with regional planning and modeling activities. For example,
in King County, Washington, the Metro Transit’s web-based GIS tool provides data on parking
utilization for multi-family housing and tests alternative parking ratios in terms of costs and impacts.
Note: More information about King County, Washington’s King County Multi-Family Residential
Parking Calculator can be found at http://www.rightsizeparking.org/.
In the case of Fort Collins, the use of the “Park+” parking demand modelling software that has been
purchased by both the City and CSU could provide a similar analysis tool.
35
Triple Bottom Line Analysis
Derived from a TBLAM Brainstorm on TOD Parking Study
In Collaboration with Planning, FC Moves, Parking and Economic Health
Purpose: To extract key triple bottom line information from a TBLAM, and use that information to
offer recommendations on key indicators and suggested action items for the TOD
Parking Study, considering both parking minimums and no prescribed requirements for
parking.
I. General Observations from TBL Analysis Map (TBLAM):
A. The TOD Parking Study team considered two alternatives: (1) parking minimums, as the
current Land Use Code requires, and (2) not having prescriptive parking requirements (as
was formerly in place). Thus, two separate maps were developed.
B. Both maps were well balanced across the columns with ample strengths and limitations
identified.
C. Several considerations crossed into many columns, and rows.
1. Crossing columns indicates excellent depth of discussion and debate.
2. Crossing of rows indicates potential for conflicting values.
D. Data, at this point, is largely anecdotal. Collecting additional parking-related data could
be helpful as the project moves forward. For example, more data and expertise could be
provided from Environmental Services personnel regarding predictions related to the
emissions increase with either scenario.
E. Threats should be further explored and contain more information on community and traffic
growth.
F. Mason Corridor MAX has a strong presence on the TBLAM.
II. Conclusions Offered:
A. Need to refine TBLAM again in phases:
1. When a proposed direction is selected, it would be beneficial to re-TBLAM with a larger
group that is unfamiliar with the project to ensure all strengths, limitations, opportunities,
and threats are identified.
B. A key driver for the mapping exercises was the vision expressed in City Plan, our
community’s comprehensive plan, which calls for increasing density within the TOD Overlay
Zone District.
1. There was significant discussion regarding whether parking minimums would allow the
City to achieve its density vision.
2. At the same time, staff was very sensitive to the other goals in City Plan regarding
neighborhood compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character.
C. The TBL team would recommend including additional stakeholders, such as the project’s
advisory committee, to include additional viewpoints in the project.
36
III. Potential Key Indicators Suggested:
A. Re-TBLAM on a phased-schedule basis.
B. Both scenarios have the potential for significant implications to all three areas (economic,
environmental, and social) legs of the sustainability stool. Collecting data now and
developing scenarios to base decisions on could be critical to ensuring the right decision is
made.
C. Post-TBLAM review environmental suggestions warrant detailed meetings and coordination
directly with Environmental Services staff.
Note: The 2 TBLAMs will be in landscape orientation in final report for improved legibility.
37
38
Best Practices Review
This section of the parking study summarizes some of the parking best management practices that
are recommended and/or have been successfully implemented in other communities. These
practices are tools to address existing parking issues and accommodate future demand. It is
important to remember that these strategies are not mutually exclusive and may need to be
modified to suit the needs of the City of Fort Collins. Many of these strategies are complementary
and are most effective when used in conjunction with one another.
Innovative Alternatives or Supplements to Minimum Parking Requirements
Some local governments have implemented alternatives to generic parking requirements that
increase availability from existing supply, reduce the demand for parking, or create more cost-
effective and environmentally sensitive parking structures that preserve pervious surfaces. By lowering
total development costs, some of these parking alternatives have consequently encouraged smart
growth development and redevelopment. This section summarizes proven alternatives and includes
discussion of their establishment, advantages, and potential concerns. The alternatives are organized
according to their influence on parking supply, parking demand and pricing.
Increasing Availability From Existing Supply Or Limited Expansion
Frequently, the supply of parking in developed areas is sufficient to meet parking demand, but a
combination of reasons limit the availability of that supply.
Context-specific Minimum Requirements
As discussed in the Introduction, generic minimum requirements are typically set based on maximum
observed demand for free parking in areas with no transportation choices. However, parking
demand is determined by a range of factors that lead to significant variations within and across
jurisdictions, meaning that a single standard for each land use may not be appropriate. Other factors
that are strongly correlated with lower vehicle ownership in urban areas are frequent transit service,
small household sizes, low incomes, a high proportion of seniors, and rental housing.
Similarly, at commercial developments, transit access, mix of uses, and density are good predictors of
parking demand. Often developers are interested in finding ways to reduce the vehicle trip
generation calculations for their expected development, so that they can demonstrate fewer
impacts on the surrounding roadway network, while they may not always be so eager to reduce the
amount of parking to supply.
A major challenge for cities is how to convert this research and data, together with experience from
other settings, into local parking requirements or planning approvals for specific developments. Some
of the mechanisms being used are:
Transit Zoning Overlays
39
New Zoning Districts or Specific Plans
Parking Freezes
Reductions for Affordable and Senior Housing
Case-By-Case Evaluation
Land Banking and Landscape Reserves
Maximum Limits and Transferable Parking Entitlements
In contrast to generic minimum parking requirements, maximum limits restrict the total number of
spaces that can be constructed rather than establish a minimum number that must be provided.
Planners set maximum limits much like they set minimum requirements. Typically, a maximum number
of spaces is based on square footage of a specific land use. For example, the City of Portland,
Oregon restricts offices in the central business district to 0.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and
retail to 1.0 space per 1,000 square feet of net building area. Contrary to what might be expected,
the maximum limits in Portland have not led to a parking shortage because of the balance of
transportation choices available.
Maximum requirements are not ideal for all locations. It is crucial for municipalities that employ
maximum requirements to have accompanying accessible and frequent public transportation. It is
also important for the area to be sufficiently stable economically to attract tenants without needing
to provide a surplus of parking. A number of cities have implemented maximum parking
requirements, including San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington.
Shared Parking
Different types of land uses attract customers, workers, and visitors during different times of the day.
Shared parking is another alternative that city planners can employ when setting parking
requirements in mixed-use areas. An office that has peak parking demand during the daytime hours,
for example, can share the same pool of parking spaces with a restaurant whose demand peaks in
the evening. This alternative also reduces overall development costs.
By allowing for and encouraging shared parking, planners can decrease the total number of spaces
required for mixed-use developments or single-use developments in mixed-use areas. Developers
benefit, not only from the decreased cost of development, but also from the “captive markets”
stemming from mixed-use development. For example, office employees are a captive market for
business lunches at restaurants in mixed-use developments.
Shared parking encourages use of large centralized parking facilities and discourages the
development of many small facilities. This results in more efficient traffic flow because there are fewer
curb cuts, and turning opportunities on main thoroughfares. This has the added benefits of reducing
accidents and reducing emissions from idling vehicles stuck in traffic.
Establishing shared parking requirements involves site-specific assessment or use of time-of-day
parking utilization curves. Montgomery County, Maryland allows for shared parking to meet minimum
parking requirements when any land or building under the same ownership or under a joint use
40
agreement is used for two or more purposes. The county uses the following method to determine
shared requirements for mixed-use developments:
Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a
separate use, by time period, considering proximity to transit.
Calculate the total parking required across uses for each time period.
Set the requirement at the maximum total across time periods.
Many available sources document procedures for calculating shared parking requirements, from
1983’s “Flexible Parking Requirements” to 2003’s SmartCode.
In-Lieu Parking Fees and Centralized Parking
Municipalities establish in-lieu parking fees as an alternative to requiring on-site parking spaces. With
in-lieu fees, developers are able to circumvent constructing parking on-site by paying the city a fee.
The city, in return, provides centralized, off-site parking that is available for use by the development’s
tenants and visitors. The fees are determined by the city and are generally based on the cost of
providing parking. Cities set fees in one of two ways, either by calculating a flat fee for parking
spaces not provided by a developer on-site or by establishing development-specific fees on a case-
by-case basis. Shoup reports that in-lieu fees in the United States range from $5,850 to $20,180 per
parking space. These fees can be imposed as a property tax surcharge.
In-lieu parking fees provide advantages to both planners and developers. Allowing developers to
pay fees in-lieu of constructing parking has the following benefits:
Overall construction costs may be reduced;
Construction of awkward, unattractive on-site parking is avoided;
Redevelopment projects involving historic buildings can avoid constructing parking that would
compromise the character of the buildings;
Planners can ensure that existing parking facilities will be more fully utilized; and
Planners can encourage better urban design with continuous storefronts that are
uninterrupted by parking lots.
In establishing in-lieu parking fees, planners must be cognizant of potential developers’ concerns
about the impact of a lack of on-site parking on the attractiveness of developments to tenants and
visitors. This can be an issue if available public parking is insufficient, inconveniently located, or
inefficiently operated. Planners must carefully consider the parking demand for each participating
property and provide enough parking to meet this demand in order to avoid creating a perceived or
real parking shortage. Planners must also work to ensure that public parking facilities are centrally
located and operated efficiently.
Centralized parking facilities can reduce the costs of parking because large facilities are less
expensive on a per space basis to build and maintain than small facilities. Centralized parking, as an
alternative to on-site parking, also improves urban design and preserves the historic nature of
communities. Some cities mandate centralized parking facilities and finance them through
41
development impact fees in lieu parking fees or negotiated contributions established during the
environmental review process.
Increasing Availability by Decreasing Demand
Demand reduction can be achieved through a variety of programs and policies that attempt to
reduce the automobile transportation demand, and thus reduce the needed supply of parking.
While these programs are typically developed by local governments, their success often depends on
the commitment of businesses to implement them effectively.
Demand reduction programs include: car sharing, subsidies for transit, transit improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and vehicle trip reduction programs. When employers allow
telecommuting and/or flexible work schedules that reduce commuting, demand is also reduced.
Car Sharing
Car sharing is a neighborhood-based, short-term vehicle rental service that makes cars available to
people on a pay-per-use basis. Members have access to a common fleet of vehicles on an as-
needed basis, gaining most of the benefits of a private car without the costs and responsibilities of
ownership. In programs with the most advanced technology, members simply reserve a car via
telephone or the Internet, walk to the nearest lot, access the car using an electronic card, and drive
off. They are billed at the end of the month.
In commercial developments, car-sharing can also be a useful tool to reduce parking demand.
Employees can use a shared vehicle for errands and meetings during the day, allowing them to take
transit, carpool, walk or bicycle to work. Car-sharing works best in compact, mixed-use
neighborhoods, where firms with corporate memberships tend to use the vehicles during the day and
residents use them in the evenings and on weekends.
As well as reduced parking demand, car-sharing brings a broad range of other benefits, including
fewer vehicle trips, and improved mobility for low-income households who may not be able to afford
to own a car. Formal car-sharing programs have been established in many cities including Boston,
Massachusetts; Washington, DC; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon;
Seattle, Washington; and Boulder, Colorado. Many others are in the process of establishing
operations. Alternatively, developers can provide shared vehicles themselves, or facilitate informal
car-sharing among residents.
Improvements to Transit Service, Pricing, and Information
Transit subsidies can be provided by employers, by cities, or by residential property managers. In the
case of employer-paid transit pass schemes, the employer pays the cost of employees’ transit,
converting the fixed cost for parking spaces into a variable cost for the public transportation subsidy.
This fringe benefit for employees reduces the demand for parking at the workplace, which in turn
reduces traffic, air pollution, and energy consumption. It also reduces the cost associated with
providing parking, as transit subsidies are generally less expensive than providing parking.
42
Improvements to Pedestrian and Bicycle Service
Demand for parking can be reduced by providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities that make it
easier and more pleasant for people to walk or bicycle rather than drive. These amenities and design
changes can alleviate traffic congestion. In particular, improving the walkability and pedestrian
orientation of employment centers can address the increasingly common “drive to lunch” syndrome.
For example, the auto-orientation of Tyson’s Corner, Virginia has resulted in terrible traffic at lunch
time because people cannot walk to eating establishments or to do errands.
Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs
Another direct form of demand reduction involves instituting vehicle trip reduction programs. Vehicle
trip reduction programs combine several types of demand reduction components to meet explicit
vehicle trip reduction goals.
Thus, instead of capping the number of parking spaces, local officials limit the number of vehicle
miles traveled in a particular region. These types of programs attempt to decrease the number of
trips by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and increase the use of a variety of commuting
alternatives, including transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling.
To increase the effectiveness of vehicle trip reduction programs, cities or employers can incorporate
an assortment of complementary program elements to balance transportation choices. The
following are some examples:
“Guaranteed ride home” services that allow employees who use public transit to get a free
ride home (e.g., via taxi) if they miss their bus or if they need to stay at work late.
Company fleet cars that can be used for running errands during the workday (e.g., doctor
appointments).
Preferential and/or reserved parking for vanpools/carpools.
Carpooling and/or vanpooling with ride matching service. Ride matching can facilitate the
identification of people who live close to one another. This service can be accomplished by
providing “ride boards” or by using an employee transportation coordinator.
Cellular phones for car and vanpooling to facilitate timing of pickups.
There is little incentive for employers to implement vehicle trip reduction programs if they are not
granted reductions in minimum parking requirements. They would not be able to realize the potential
cost savings from providing less parking, but would simply be faced with a large number of empty
spaces. Several cities, such as South San Francisco, have acknowledged this through ordinances that
reduce parking requirements for projects that include vehicle trip reduction programs.
Efficient Pricing
Although it is often provided at no charge to the user, parking is never free. Each space in a parking
structure can cost upwards of $2,500 per year in maintenance, operations and the amortization of
land and construction costs. Even on-street spaces incur maintenance costs and an opportunity cost
43
in foregone land value. The cost of parking is generally subsumed into lease fees or sale prices for the
sake of simplicity and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. However, providing
anything for free or at highly subsidized rates encourages overuse and means that more parking
spaces have to be provided to achieve the same rate of availability. Charging users for parking is a
market-based approach by which the true cost of parking can be passed through to parking users. If
the fee charged to users of parking facilities is sufficient to cover construction, operation, and
maintenance costs, it will likely cause some users to choose not to park. Even where there are few
alternatives to driving, parking pricing can encourage employees to seek out carpooling partners. In
addition to reducing the cost of parking provision, pricing strategies bring major environmental and
congestion benefits, particularly since they tend to reduce peak-period vehicle trips the most.
Parking charges have been found to reduce employee vehicle trips, and thus daily parking demand,
by between 7 percent and 30 percent or more, depending on factors such as the level of charges
and the availability of alternatives to driving alone. Parking price elasticities generally range from –0.1
to –0.6, with the most common value being –0.3, meaning that each 1 percent rise in parking fees is
accompanied by a 0.3 percent decrease in demand.
Cash-Out Programs
Cash-out programs provide alternatives to directly charging users for parking. Under such programs,
employers offer employees the choice of free or subsidized parking, a transit/vanpool subsidy equal
to the value of the parking (of which up to $100 is tax-free under current federal law), or a taxable
carpool/walk/bike subsidy equal to the value of the parking.
Employees who opt for the non-parking subsidies are not eligible to receive free parking from the
employer, and are responsible for their parking charges on days when they drive to work. The cost
savings associated with cash-out payments depend on the amount of the payments. If the full cash
equivalent is provided, this demand reduction program does not reduce the total costs of providing
parking. However, employees may accept cash payments lower than the full equivalent of the
parking subsidy. If partial cash payments are used, employers face lower overall transportation
subsidy costs and employees still benefit.
Differential Pricing by Trip Type
Parking pricing can be used as a sensitive tool to prioritize some types of trip over others, according
to their purpose and duration. It allows managers to cater for desirable trips, such as short-term
shoppers, while discouraging undesirable commuter trips, which add to peak-hour congestion and
occupy a parking space for an entire day. These pricing strategies allow the overall supply of parking
to be minimized, while ensuring spaces are available for critical users. They can also alleviate pressure
to provide more parking from retailers and businesses, who may be concerned that poor parking
availability discourages shoppers. Examples include:
Lower or zero rates for short-term parking encourage shopping trips, while proportionally higher
rates for long-term parking discourage all-day commuter parking, freeing up spaces for
customers. Short-term parking allows many people to use a single space over the course of a
44
day, rather than a single commuter, and generates revenue for businesses and sales tax
dollars for cities.
Parking charges that are levied by the hour or day, with no discounts for monthly parking,
remove the financial disincentive to take transit occasionally. There is no perverse incentive to
drive every day to “get your money’s worth” from the monthly parking pass.
Parking charges at transit stations that only apply before a certain time (such as 9 or 10 am)
encourage off-peak transit ridership where spare capacity is available, rather than
contributing to crowding in the peak.
Residential Parking Pricing
Parking charges can also be introduced at residential developments, through separating or
“unbundling” the cost of parking from rents or sale prices. Rather than being provided with a set
number of spaces whether they need them or not, residents can choose how many spaces they wish
to purchase or rent. An alternative to direct charges is to provide “rent rebates” or discounts to
residents who own fewer vehicles and do not use their allocated parking spaces.
Parking Benefit Districts
Parking pricing strategies can also be implemented through Parking Benefit Districts. Under this
concept, revenue from meters and residential permits is returned to local neighborhoods. Once
administrative costs are covered, all money goes to transportation and neighborhood improvements
such as undergrounding of utility wires. Parking Benefit Districts allow developments to be built with
less parking, while addressing potential spillover problems through market pricing of curb parking.
Earmarking revenue to directly benefit the neighborhood or commercial district helps to generate
support for charges from local residents and businesses, which might otherwise resist charging for
parking that used to be free. Cities such as San Diego and Pasadena, California, have implemented
Parking Benefit Districts in their downtown business districts, using parking meter revenue.
45
Peer City Reviews
In our research related to peer city parking requirements, we applied two primary criteria:
communities of similar size or characteristics to Fort Collins or communities with progressive parking
planning policies similar in values to Fort Collins. We identified five primary communities that met
these criteria. These communities include:
• Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Berkeley, CA
• Portland, OR
• Eugene, OR
• Arlington County, VA
A summary of the key elements of each of these city’s policies are provided below. More detailed
information for each community is provided in Appendix B. Appendix B contains selected examples
of well-developed or progressive zoning codes including some not on the Peer Cities list noted
above.
City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
City’s web page: www.a2gov.org
Downtown Development Authority web page: www.a2dda.org
Commuting programs and services web page: www.getdowntown.org
Key Policies and Initiatives
GetDowntown Program – This is a commuter service and assistance program. It offers
commuting programs and services to employees and employers in downtown Ann Arbor.
Programs and services include the go!pass, Commuter Challenge, Bike Locker Rentals, Zipcars,
free commuting assistance, and commuting materials.
Go! Pass Program – It is an employee benefit which offers unlimited rides on the City buses with
in Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) boundaries. Additionally, this program offers
discounts for other commuter services and at downtown businesses.
Commuter Challenge – It offers prizes for trying alternative modes of transportation. The modes
include busing, biking, walking, carpooling, and van pooling. The program is offered only for
the month of May.
Bike Locker Rental – Locker rentals are offered at $60/month. The rentals are offered from April
1 to March 31. The fee is prorated if the rental starts after April. Monthly rentals are not
available.
To encourage alternative modes of transportation, the parking demand for office buildings
were dropped from 4 to 3 per 1,000sf.
Maximum parking demand ratio was implemented for many land uses.
For downtown projects, developers are not required to provide parking for up to 400% of FAR.
46
For some mixed-use land uses, 700% of FAR is allowed and parking is required for FAR above
400%.
Bicycle parking is required for many land uses.
Outside bicycle parking spaces can be used for meeting “useable open space” requirements.
Areas for inside bicycle parking spaces are not included in calculating the vehicular parking
requirements.
Up to 30% of parking supply could be designed for compact cars only.
Arlington County, Virginia
Arlington County web page: www.arlingtonva.us
Commuter Service web page: www.commuterpage.com
Mobility Lab: http://mobilitylab.org/
Key Policies and Initiatives
Office parking requirement is 1 space per 580sf (with associated apartment use), which is
significantly less than the national average. Without apartment use, the requirement is 1/530sf.
Hotel parking requirement is 0.7 per room. Again, significantly less than national average.
Underground parking is encouraged.
Parking requirements for Medical Office Buildings could be reduced by 10%.
Parking requirements are reduced if approved shared parking programs are implemented.
Parking is not required for the first 5,000sf of development (some land uses are excluded). For
grocery stores, first 15,000sf is exempt, if the grocery store is not the principal land use.
Office parking requirements could be reduced by up to 10%.
100% of required parking could be provided up to ¼-mile away.
Reduced parking demand with approved TDM programs.
Up to 15% of parking supply could be designed for compact cars only.
Maximum parking requirements for many land uses.
Parking near metro stations is not required if the development is located within 1,000 feet (with
some exemptions).
Mobility Lab is one of the most aggressive and successful transportation alternative programs
in the country is a recommended model for Fort Collins to review.
City of Berkeley, California
City’s web page: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us
Commuter Service web page: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commute
Key Policies and Initiatives
The City offers many commuter programs. These include:
o The Tax Relief Action to Cut Commuter Carbon (TRACC)
o Commuter Benefit Services for Employers
47
o The City requires that employers with ten or more employees provide a commute
program to encourage employees to use public transit, vanpools or bicycles. TRACCC,
gives employers several options - businesses can offer their employees commuter tax
benefits as a payroll deduction, provide a subsidized benefit, or offer a combination of
the two.
Commute Programs
o Guaranteed Ride Home Program
o Ride matching for carpools and vanpools
o Transportation Programs at UC Berkeley
Transit Information Services
o 511 Transit Information
o Getting There on Transit
o Clipper, the Bay Area's Smart Card for Transit
AC Transit Local and Transbay Bus Service
o Other Bus Services in Berkeley
o Paratransit Services
o Rail Service in Berkeley
o Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
o Capitol Corridor (train service from San Jose to Sacramento)
o Connecting AMTRAK passenger rail services
Car Sharing
Parking can be provided up to 300 feet away from the development.
Joint-use, off-street parking is allowed if there are no substantial conflicts.
Transit Service Fee (TSF) is collected to provide paratranist passes and promote ride sharing.
Parking requirements are reduced if the development is located within 1/3-mile from a BART
station.
Subsidies available for approved TDM programs.
City of Eugene, Oregon
City’s web page: www.eugene-or.gov
Key Policies and Initiatives
Parking requirements may be reduced (for some land uses) if the developer offers an
approved shared parking plan.
Bicycle parking is required with many land uses.
Maximum parking ratio is used.
Maximum parking cannot exceed 125% of minimum parking requirements.
Parking requirements may be reduced if an approved Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan is implemented.
The City offers typical commuter services including bus, car pool, and van pool.
48
City of Portland, Oregon
City’s web page: www.portlandonline.com
Commuter Assistance web page: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/43820
Key Policies and Initiatives
Maximum parking for many land uses.
Parking could be provided up to 500 feet away.
Stacked parking with valet attendant is allowed.
Parking requirements could be reduced by 5% for approved carpool programs.
Parking requirements for residential developments are reduced and completely eliminated for
all other land uses, if:
o The development is located within 1,500 feet from a transit station, or
o 500 feet from transit street where peak-hour service is provided at 20-minute intervals.
Bicycle parking is required for many land uses.
For every five bicycle parking, one vehicle parking could be eliminated.
Parking requirements could be reduced by 10% if a transit supportive plaza is provided with
the development.
Motor cycle parking could be used to reduce vehicle parking by 5%.
For every two car sharing parking one vehicle parking could be eliminated.
“Smart Trip Business” initiative to encourage use of alternate modes of transportation. Some of
the programs include:
o Encourage use of bicycle at work place.
o Businesses could be certified for as, “Sustainability Work Certified.” The certifications
include “Certified,” Silver,” and “Gold.”
o Car sharing programs.
o Centralized Transportation Resource.
o Employee education about use of transit.
o “Commuter Challenge” program to encourage the use of alternate modes of
transportation.
The table on the following page provides a comparison of the City of Fort Collins to the selected peer
cities regarding key zoning code policies and issues.
49
CITY OF FORT COLLINS (within
TOD)
CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA CITY OF BERKLEY, CA CITY OF EUGENE, OR CITY OF PORTLAND, OR
General Practice
Maximum/Minimum
Standards
Yes Minimum - Yes Yes N/A Yes; cannot exceed 125% of
minimum standards
Yes; Maximums apply for
certain situations and land
use
Parking Reductions
Yes; within TOD Overlay
District (currently 70% of min -
currently applies to
residential uses), alternative
compliance measures may
be applied
Reduced Office parking
standards from 4 to 3
spaces / 1,000' sf
MOB/Office parking can be
reduced by 10%; Alternative
compliance for mixed use
buildings with or without
apartments (e.g., 1.0 / 580 sf
(w/apt use) - 1.0 / 530 sf
(w/o apt use)
Up to 25% reduction from
the minimum for shared, off-
street parking; District
specific standards also
apply (e.g., up to 50% in the
Nodal Development
Overlay Zone)
10% reduction with transit
plaza on site; see also
Reduction in Parking with
TDM
If within 1,000' of metro
station - no parking required
(certain, listed uses
including retail and service
commercial, grocery stores
and restaurants
If within 1/3 mile of BART
station; 1/4 mile of publicly
accessble parking facility;
parking survey (500' radius),
or provides certain types of
uses.
If within 1,500' of transit
station or 500' of station with
20 min peak hour intervals -
parking may be reduced or
eliminated
First 5K sf of building
exempted from parking;
grocery store = 15K sf
50
Public Involvement
Task Overview
Across the country, cities and transit-supported commercial districts are more thoughtfully examining
the role that parking requirements play in shaping the development landscape. This study includes
an in-depth examination of key issues, an assessment of the larger national debate regarding parking
requirements, a review of best practices from peer communities, but hearing directly from
community members is also a critical element of our assessment. Therefore a rigorous public
involvement process was conducted from January through April 2014.
Intentional and targeted outreach to community stakeholders helps provide insight into the real and
perceived parking and access challenges that residents, property owners, merchants, students and
visitors encounter when they visit the districts included in the TOD study area.
The consulting team was charged with creating a public involvement process to:
Educate stakeholders and interested members of the general public about the process, goals
and desired outcomes of the TOD Parking Study
Identify and engage key individuals, groups and organizations within the study area that are
impacted by both existing parking requirements and future policy decisions
Provide residents with the opportunity to share their experiences, perceptions, ideas and
concerns during the study process so that their feedback can be incorporated into the study
recommendations in a meaningful way.
Public Involvement Strategy & Methodology Overview
Due to the complexity and technical nature of the study topic, Kimley-Horn and Associates engaged
The Solesbee Group to develop an intensive public involvement strategy specifically for the Fort
Collins TOD Project. The outreach strategy was specifically developed to help stakeholders better
understand the role that parking requirements play in the City’s larger community development and
quality of life landscape, and was grounded in the important context of the City’s adopted planning
efforts – City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Downtown Parking Strategic Plan and Midtown Plan to
name a few.
The public outreach process officially kicked off January 22-23, with a set of meetings conducted by
the consulting team. The remainder of the public meetings was conducted by City staff following the
format outlined in the initial presentation which included a brief PowerPoint presentation and series of
prepared questions (See Appendix C).
The following outline provides an overview of the opportunities that were provided to stakeholder
groups, community organizations and the general public to provide feedback throughout the
project.
51
Community Engagement Strategy #1: Focus group presentations to key stakeholders and community
groups
o Groups Engaged (January – April 2014)
UniverCity Connections, Transit and Mobility Taskforce, January 7
Developers, Jan 22-23
Commercial property owners, January 22-23
Design community/planners, January 22-23
Board of Realtors, February 11
Overland Sertoma Club, February 19
Downtown Business Association, March 20
Colorado State University/Avery Park Neighborhood, March 27
South Fort Collins Business Association, April 8
North Front Range MPO & Larimer County Mobility Council, April 17
Chamber of Commerce, April 18
Community Engagement Strategy #2: Engage City Boards
o Groups Engaged (January – April 2014)
Planning and Zoning Board, March 7
Parking Advisory Board, March 10
Transportation Board, March 19
Affordable Housing Board, April 3
Community Engagement Strategy #3: General Public Involvement & Education
o Tactic: Project Booth at Transportation Open House (Feb 20)
Attendees: 150+
o Tactic: Online Presence & Social Media (January – April 2014):
Project Web page on City Web site
City Facebook page
Project information distributed through:
Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter
o XXX Subscribers
Development Review List Serve
o 328 Subscribers
Nextdoor Web Posting
o 4,174 total members
o 3,330 households
Board of Realtors Survey
o 400 Responses
o Tactic: Targeted Neighborhood Meetings (January – March 2014)
Downtown Neighborhoods, March 6
Midtown Neighborhoods, March 11
52
Campus Area/Avery Park Neighborhoods, March 27
o Tactic: Engage Media (January – April 2014)
Article in Coloradoan (March 5)
Neighborhood Services E-Newsletter (Date?)
Northern Colorado Business (Date?)
Additionally, an online questionnaire was included on the project Web site and promoted during
public meetings, on Facebook and through existing e-publications like the Mason Corridor
Connection E-Newsletter. The questionnaire was provided as alternative option for those who could
not attend one of the public meetings to ensure that a variety of opportunities for feedback were
provided. XX people completed the questionnaire and a copy of the questionnaire tool is included in
Appendix D.
Community Feedback
Extensive notes were taken at all the public meetings and that feedback, along with the open-
ended questionnaire responses, was carefully analyzed to identify key themes and the most
frequently mentioned stakeholder concerns. The result of that analysis is detailed in this following
section.
Current State of Parking
When asked their opinion about the current state of parking in the TOD study area, stakeholders
responded as follows:
Downtown is very busy on-street but there is “plenty of off-street parking except for maybe
once or twice a year”. Many reported “never having trouble finding parking” in a downtown
garage.
The areas around CSU are “always congested”; 62% of Board of Realtor (BOR) survey
respondents said there was “not enough parking” around CSU. There were mixed reviews
about the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) – not in terms of program management
but in terms of the frustration of having students parking in the neighborhoods – and there was
strong consensus that CSU should be more actively involved in either providing parking options
for students or discouraging students from bringing cars in the first place.
Largely there is plenty of parking in Midtown, except around a few projects like The Summit.
61% of BOR survey respondents said 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).
Another important issue that was raised frequently in conversations about the current state of parking
was the safety of pedestrians and bikers. It was mentioned that safety issues already exist in areas
where there is a higher density of people and vehicles in the TOD (i.e., around campus and in
53
residential areas surrounding campus), and by actively seeking to increase density with TOD-oriented
policies, pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle conflicts will naturally only intensify. The solutions most frequently
suggested were: 1) grade separation between bikes, pedestrians and vehicles was suggested, 2)
separate paths for bikes and pedestrians and 3) improvement/better maintenance to existing bike
paths.
“TOD without the ‘T’”
One of the most, if not the most, consistent question heard throughout the stakeholder engagement
process was: Is it was too early to think about policy decisions like appropriate parking
minimums/maximums for the TOD when MAX isn’t online yet? Many stakeholders rightly pointed out
that while it is important to be aware of current parking issues in the TOD, these issues may not be the
same once MAX comes online. This stakeholder feedback was in line with concerns raised by City
staff and the consulting team at the beginning of this study. Stakeholders smartly cautioned the study
team that any recommendations of the study should be data-driven and allow sufficient flexibility in
parking policy decisions once MAX comes online. To begin addressing the “data question”, City staff
collected baseline parking occupancy data in the neighborhoods surrounding the MAX. Data was
collected both during CSU’s spring break and while class was in session to provide an accurate
picture of occupancy in both scenarios.
“A Tale of Two Cities”
Perhaps the most striking theme identified throughout the public involvement process was the stark
divide between respondents who strongly feel that Colorado is part of the “west” and that while
using alternative modes is reasonable for “routine trips” (i.e., shopping, meeting friends, traveling to
work or school), residents still want access to their cars and a convenient place to park them upon
arrival. This sentiment was especially evident in the questionnaire where, in one question, respondents
strongly supported the construction of additional structured parking to ensure convenient parking
options and help prevent spillover into residential neighborhoods, while commenting that parking
structures were “unsightly”, “blocked mountain views” and discouraged the use of alternate modes
in a following question.
While this “Tale of Two Cities” perspective isn’t a new development, it is firmly part of Fort Collins’
cultural fabric and it was vitally important for the consulting team to carefully consider both
perspectives when creating a balanced set of recommendations for the TOD project. Through
investment in the MAX Bus Rapid Transit line, the City of Fort Collins has made a very public
commitment to developing policies and programs that support its adopted Triple Bottom Line
approach. According to both the public meeting feedback and questionnaire results, a slight
majority of residents are cautiously willing to support the City’s more progressive approach to parking
management – one that creates a reasonable disincentive for people to use single-occupancy
vehicles as their main mode of transportation and that doesn’t invest in car-oriented urban design.
Stakeholders also showed strong support for existing City plans, a sentiment that is reflected a
previous section of this report that highlights how the recommendations of this study were grounded
in adopted City plans.
54
Balancing a “Case by Case” Approach
Several stakeholders confirmed one of the core assumptions made by the consulting team at the
beginning of this project, which was that the result of this study would not be a “one size fits all”
solution but instead would identify a process to guide City staff as they evaluate specific proposed
projects. While stakeholders suggested that the City “be creative” and approach proposed
developments on a case by case basis, a careful balance must be struck between allowing City staff
and the development community enough freedom to come up with creative solutions while also
recognizing the negatives associated with inhibiting development with burdensome review processes
and/or “cutting things up into pieces” in terms of zoning and sub areas. Other frequently mentioned
stakeholder comments included:
The desire to see more of an incentive model rather than using regulation to enact change.
The feeling that it is important to differentiate between types of projects, commercial,
residential and student residential, in terms of parking impacts.
The importance of developing a process whereby the City can obligate developers to follow
through on the promises that they make to get a plan approved.
Other Frequently Mentioned Issues: On-Street Paid Parking, “PPP’s” and Off-Site Car Storage
On-Street Paid Parking: Implementing a paid parking program came up multiple times
throughout a variety of different stakeholder groups as a tool that the City should have at its
disposal. While on-street paid parking has been under discussion for many years in Fort Collins
and many feel strongly that businesses will be adversely impacted by its implementation, the
enforcement of time-limited parking has its limitations and free on-street parking seems
counterintuitive in a community that actively supports alternative transportation modes and
environmental sustainability. Many stakeholders also reported confusion about why they had
to pay to use parking garages while on-street parking remains free; as one stakeholder wisely
commented “the most convenient parking should be paid parking”. If Fort Collins truly wants
to achieve its goals of compact walkable development, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and
supporting the success of alternative transportation investments, paid parking can be an
effective tool and it should be leveraged as a key management strategy.
Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s): Public/private partnerships, related to the development of
structured parking, should be a key strategy for achieving many of the TOD area’s primary
goals (i.e., increased development density, limiting the over-supply of parking, promoting
shared parking, encouraging the success of the MAX line, etc.). Additional structured parking –
which was the option overwhelmingly preferred by stakeholders for the development of future
parking assets – is an expensive undertaking but when done well, can be positioned as an
incentive that will spur additional TOD development.
Off-site Car Storage: As discussed in the previous “Tale of Two Cities” section above, Colorado
is considered part of the west and 93% of Board of Realtor survey respondents said owning a
55
car was “Important” (67% said “Very Important”). The overwhelming majority of stakeholders
said that owning a vehicle provides quick access to the mountains, Denver metro area, the
Denver International Airport, and is part of the cultural fabric of Colorado. Bottom line: As long
as a “convenient” alternative does not exist, people are not giving up their cars – even if they
choose to live in a transit oriented corridor.
One of the ideas shared with stakeholders during this study process was the concept of off-site
car storage. The reactions to this suggestion were widely mixed – some thought it was a
creative solution that was worth trying (as long as the remote parking was accessible via the
MAX line), while others thought that the suggestion was a non-starter. While the consulting
team was not aware of other communities where off-site car storage has been implemented
effectively, “someone always has to be the first one to try a new idea” and a small study using
CSU students and other residents located along the MAX could be a viable pilot study.
“Closing the Communication Loop”: How Engagement Informs Policy Recommendations
The City of Fort Collins has one of the most robust public involvement processes of any City of its size
across the country, and maybe even one of the most robust for a City of ANY size. What the City
rightly realizes is that stakeholder engagement is a vital part of developing a successful access
management and parking strategy that supports a community’s larger economic development
goals. Outreach to Fort Collin’s diverse constituencies, while not without its challenges, provides
important insight into the real and perceived parking, transportation and access challenges regularly
faced by businesses, property owners, students, employees, visitors and members of the Fort Collins
community.
However, in many communities that undertake a planning or study process like this one,
communication with stakeholders about how their feedback was used to develop study or plan
recommendations is often missing. After spending hours of time attending public meetings, taking
surveys and engaging in online discussion, stakeholders often feel disenchanted with the process
because they can’t see their “fingerprints” when it comes time for recommendations on policies and
programming to be made. In many communities, engagement grinds to a halt when the study is
complete or the consultant leaves town, and stakeholders don’t hear from their cities again until it is
time for a new round of public meetings.
In cities like Fort Collins – where proactive and authentic public involvement is part of the community
culture – it is really important to continue communication and education throughout the policy
development and implementation phases, giving the stakeholders and general public an avenue to
give feedback that could help refine the implementation process. This process – “Closing the
Communication Loop” – also helps build trust and confidence that feedback given during the public
involvement process was both heard and incorporated into the final recommendations. It is the hope
of the consulting team that stakeholders will see their words and thoughts reflected in this Public
Involvement chapter of the Transit-Oriented Parking Study. It is also strongly recommended that this
report, along with an Executive Summary which includes specific recommendations, be made
56
available to the general public using a variety of formats, including distribution through existing e-
publications (i.e., Mason Corridor Connection), and social media with links to the project Web site.
57
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
The following tables and maps summarize the data collection efforts conducted to document
current parking inventory and utilization around the new developments within the TOD Overlay Zone.
Parking utilization surveys were conducted around seven recent development projects within the
TOD Overlay Zone, including the Summit. Parking utilization surveys were conducted at various times
of day including: mid-week early AM counts, mid-week mid-day counts, evening counts and
weekend counts. Counts were also taken during the CSU spring break week to provide a snapshot of
parking utilization in the absence of normal student activities.
Additional parking utilization data collected as part of the City’s new Residential Parking Permit
program was also reviewed.
The bottom line was that parking utilization rates were within acceptable ranges (none would have
met the minimum standard required to initiate the City’s residential parking permit process) and while
acknowledging that some residents still express concerns regarding parking spillover, the problem,
based on the collected data, does not appear to be as bad as initially thought.
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Mid-Week Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Property Name Date Time
Public
Occupancy
Private
Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity
Percent
Occupied
318 W. Myrtle 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 78 0 135 0 57.78%
318 W. Myrtle 4/9/2014 2:15 PM 115 0 135 0 85.19%
Flats at the Oval 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 154 41 452 57 38.31%
Flats at the Oval 4/9/2014 2:50 PM 345 35 452 57 74.66%
Penny Flats 4/9/2014 6:40 AM 95 0 382 0 24.87%
Penny Flats 4/9/2014 3:15 PM 214 0 382 0 56.02%
Pura Vida 4/9/2014 6:20 AM 216 35 383 49 58.10%
Pura Vida 4/9/2014 2:50 PM 293 29 383 49 74.54%
Ram's Crossing 4/9/2014 5:40 AM 78 254 137 495 52.53%
Ram's Crossing 4/9/2014 2:00 PM 137 269 137 495 64.24%
Summit on College 4/9/2014 5:50 AM 176 261 341 834 37.19%
Summit on College 4/9/2014 2:25 PM 118 308 341 834 36.26%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/9/2014 7:00 AM 62 72 411 142 24.23%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/9/2014 3:15 PM 191 111 411 142 54.61%
58
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Evening Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy
Private
Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied
318 W. Myrtle 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 80 0 135 0 59.26%
318 W. Myrtle 4/4/2014 8:10 PM 93 0 135 0 68.89%
Flats at the Oval 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 243 56 452 57 58.74%
Flats at the Oval 4/4/2014 8:10 PM 270 42 452 57 61.30%
Penny Flats 4/4/2014 6:45 AM 103 0 382 0 26.96%
Penny Flats 4/4/2014 8:25 PM 130 0 382 0 34.03%
Pura Vida 4/4/2014 6:25 AM 196 42 383 49 55.09%
Pura Vida 4/4/2014 8:15 PM 160 28 383 49 43.52%
Ram's Crossing 4/4/2014 5:45 AM 75 295 137 495 58.54%
Ram's Crossing 4/4/2014 7:10 PM 62 185 137 495 39.08%
Summit on College 4/4/2014 5:55 AM 275 276 341 834 46.89%
Summit on College 4/4/2014 7:45 PM 138 537 341 834 57.45%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/4/2014 6:45 AM 78 69 411 142 26.58%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/4/2014 8:45 PM 295 81 411 142 67.99%
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Weekend Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy Private Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity Percent Occupied
318 W. Myrtle 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 78 0 135 0 57.78%
318 W. Myrtle 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 61 0 135 0 45.19%
Flats at the Oval 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 216 43 452 57 50.88%
Flats at the Oval 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 206 33 452 57 46.95%
Penny Flats 4/5/2014 6:30 AM 108 0 382 0 28.27%
Penny Flats 4/5/2014 3:20 PM 125 0 382 0 32.72%
Pura Vida 4/5/2014 6:15 AM 190 26 383 49 50.00%
Pura Vida 4/5/2014 3:00 PM 143 23 383 49 38.43%
Ram's Crossing 4/5/2014 5:40 AM 64 204 137 495 42.41%
Ram's Crossing 4/5/2014 2:15 PM 50 157 137 495 32.75%
Summit on College 4/5/2014 5:50 AM 166 230 341 834 33.70%
Summit on College 4/5/2014 2:30 PM 128 404 341 834 45.28%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/5/2014 6:45 AM 70 70 411 142 25.32%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 4/5/2014 3:25 PM 297 66 411 142 65.64%
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Spring Break Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Property Name Date Time
Public
Occupancy
Private
Occupancy Public Capacity
Private
Capacity Percent Occupied
318 W. Myrtle 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 46 0 135 0 34.07%
318 W. Myrtle 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 104 0 135 0 77.04%
Flats at the Oval 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 164 21 452 57 36.35%
Flats at the Oval 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 270 16 452 57 56.19%
Penny Flats 3/20/2014 6:20 AM 84 0 382 0 21.99%
Penny Flats 3/20/2014 3:15 PM 188 0 382 0 49.21%
Pura Vida 3/20/2014 5:45 AM 144 23 383 49 38.66%
Pura Vida 3/20/2014 2:15 PM 179 21 383 49 46.30%
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Alternatives Assessment
Introduction
Alternatives Review
The following alternatives were identified in the overview and scope of the project. The following
factors were considered in the assessment of each alternative based on our review of best practices
and the peer city reviews conducted as part of this study.
Alternative 1: No changes
o Factors considered:
▪ It may be premature to evaluate parking standards for the Transit-Oriented
Development Overlay Zone prior to an operational transit system (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 Factors 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. Defining specific data requirements and parking impact
study methodologies as well as standards for applying the results by City staff are
being evaluated.
▪ 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
68
and related traffic and parking demand impacts on an on-going basis and
identify opportunities to collaborate with CSU on common parking goals.
▪ The City could develop a range of developer and/or employer trip reduction
programs.
▪ Minimum requirements could vary based on land use and/or development size
and character.
Alternative 3: Parking Impact Study
o Factors 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.
▪ Defining specific data requirements and parking impact study methodologies as
well as standards for applying the results by City staff are being evaluated.
▪ 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.
Alternative 4: Dynamic Parking Requirement
o Factors considered:
▪ Consider how parking standards can be tied to trip generation rates. A key goal
of the TOD Overlay Zone was not to allow the 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 expand, parking
requirements could be more dynamic, adapting to specific criteria on an
aggregate or area-specific basis.
Alternative 5: Parking Fees
o Factors considered:
▪ Fee-in-Lieu programs have been reviewed and have several significant
drawbacks.
69
▪ Parking Impact Fees are an option that may offer more benefits and flexibility.
▪ Other approaches to parking infrastructure development (to support the larger
TOD corridor development goals) are being reviewed. The 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.
o Paid on-street in the downtown area could generate a significant
revenue stream that could be used as the basis for parking
infrastructure development going forward.
• A tax measure to underwrite future parking and transportation
infrastructure development is another viable alternative (at least from the
perspective of generating an adequate revenue stream to fund the
needed investments.
Alternative 6: Structured Parking Strategies
o Factors considered:
▪ 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.
▪ Consider public/private partnerships for the creation of mixed-use 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
• Finding a key location or locations for development along the MAX
corridor for a “model” TOD development project (a project that
exemplifies the desired type and scale of development that the City
wants to encourage)could be developed to “set the standard” for the
corridor in terms of development density, design standards, shared
parking, support of transportation alternatives, etc. As part of this
“idealized development project”, a public/private partnership related to
70
the provision of structured parking could be developed as a road map for
similar projects to follow.
Alternative 7: Other Strategies
o Factors considered:
▪ Focus on “multi-modal strategies”. Increase opportunities for improved
walkability and urban design, active transportation, and monitor trends in
automobile ownership patterns, etc. as a way to improve overall accessibility
and to reduce vehicle miles travelled and 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?
▪ Evaluate 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 land use patterns and parking demand. Consider the
development of incremental approaches that balance long-term goals with
short and mid-term needs.
▪ The potential for shared-use storage parking at CSU is not being considered by
University staff at the present time, but should be revisited on a regular basis as
the campus parking and transportation programs change over time.
▪ The creation 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” is recommended.
71
DRAFT Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Minimum Parking Requirements that Vary Based on Land Use
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following table; the
maximum number of parking spaces provided per use shall not exceed 115% of the minimum
required with the exception of parking spaces provided in parking structures:
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement (+)
Rent-by-the-Bedroom
Multi-family Dwellings
Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.75
Multi-family Senior Dwellings Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.3
Multifamily Dwellings
# Bedrooms/Unit
Parking spaces/unit
One or less 0.75
Two 1
Three 1.25
Four and above 1.5
Demand Mitigation Strategy Parking Requirement Reduction (-)
Affordable Housing
(< 50% AMI)
50%1.
Transit Passes 10%2.
Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share3
Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station 10%
Shared Parking
Based on Shared Parking Study Results
(Land Use Dependent)
Off-Site Parking 1:1
Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10%4.
72
Parking Impact Study Based on Proposal
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Proposal
Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation
Demand Management.
2. Commercial Uses
Currently, the Land Use Code does not have minimum parking requirements for commercial land
uses; it only has maximum requirements. This study recommends the creation of minimum parking
requirements at approximately 50% of the maximum requirement.
General recommendations: Below are selected uses and possible minimum and maximum parking
standards including additional comments based on Section 3.2.2 of the Fort Collins LUC.
Existing Uses and Structures*: For any legally existing use, including structure, and related parking in
place at the time of these regulations who proposes a change in use (including redevelopment of an
existing building, repurpose or similar) which does not result in the material increase of the
use/structure by more than 10 percent not to exceed 1,000 sq. ft., no additional parking shall be
required. Any such use/structure which proposes to increase by greater than 10 percent or 1,000 sq.
ft. shall provide parking for only the amount of the increase in the building above what is currently
constructed. For new development within the TOD Overlay zone, the first 25 percent up to 5,000 sq. ft.
is exempt from the off-street parking requirements.
*At the May 2, 2014 PAB and P&Z Work Session, it was recommended to explore requiring some sort of
alternative to on-site parking for changes of use that have a significantly higher parking requirement
than what existed. Staff is still working on the details.
Use Minimum Parking
(recommended)
Maximum
Parking
Additional Comments
Restaurants
a. Fast Food
b. Standard
See
recommendations in
the Additional
Comments column
15/1000 sq. ft.
10/1000 sq. ft.
Revise the calculation
standard for
restaurants from gross
leasable area to
customer seating or
similar to account for
non-publicly
accessible areas
(storage, prep, etc).
73
Examples include
parking standards
based on either seats
(1 space/3 seats), or
based on customer
service areas plus a
prescribed number
for employees (5
spaces/1000 sq.ft.
customer seating
area minimum not to
exceed 12
spaces/1000 sq.ft.
plus 0.7 spaces/
employee of the
largest shift See
additional information
below.
Peer and other cities
review range from
10/1000 sq.ft. to
15/1000 sq.ft.
Bars, Taverns, and
Nightclubs
10/1000 sq. ft. See Restaurant
comment
Commercial
Recreational
a. Limited Indoor
Recreation
b. Outdoor
c. Bowling Alley
3/1000 sq. ft.
.1/person cap
2.5/1000 sq. ft.
6/1000 sq. ft.
.3/person cap
5/1000 sq. ft.
Theaters 1/6 seats 1/3 seats This standard is typical
and reflects the
average for families
and young adults.
Peer and other city
reviews range from
74
1/2 seats up to 1/4
seats.
General Retail 2/1000 sq.ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. The maximum could
be reduced to 3/1000
sq.ft. within the TOD.
Ranges observed in
other communities
range between
3.3/1000 to 5/1000
Personal Business and
Service Shop
2/1000 sq.ft. 4/1000 sq. ft.
Shopping Center 2/1000 sq.ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Similar to the General
Retail Standard, the
maximum could be
reduced to 3.5 – 4.0 /
1000 sq.ft. within the
TOD.
A possible reduction
measure is the
provision of a MAX
stop or similar within
the center with a
graduated scale if
the stop is within a
specified distance.
Medical Office 2/1000 sq. ft. 4.5/1000 sq. ft. These uses can have
high turnover rates
and overlap of
patients. 2/1000 is
very low and may
lead to increased
complaints; could
look at reducing the
maximum from 4.5 to
4 or 3.5 within the TOD
Financial Services 2/1000 sq. ft. 3.5/1000 sq. ft. Depending on
75
proposed facilities,
drive-thru’s, etc, these
numbers vary
throughout the peer
and other cities
review.
Grocery Store,
Supermarket
3/1000 sq.ft. 6/1000 sq. ft. These uses typically
still have increased
vehicular use. Peer
and other cities
review range
between 3/ 1000
sq.ft. to 4/1000 sq.ft.
General Office 1/1000 sq.ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. or
.75/employee
on the largest
shift or 4.5/1000
sq. ft. if all
additional
parking spaces
gained by the
increased ratio
(over 3/1000 sq.
ft.) are
contained within
a parking
garage/structure
Peer and other cities
review range
between 2/1000 sq.ft.
to 4/1000 sq.ft.
Vehicle Servicing &
Maintenance
2/1000 sq.ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. The City may want to
clarify off-street
parking versus on-site
(overnight) vehicle
storage of vehicles
under repair. Peer
cities review range
between 2/ 1000
sq.ft. to 3/ 1000 sq.ft.
Low Intensity Retail,
Repair Service,
1/1000 sq.ft. 2/1000 sq. ft. The City may want to
consider an
76
Workshop and Custom
Small Industry
additional standard if
a showroom or
publicly accessible
area is provided.
Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit The City may want to
consider an
additional clause if
the lodging facility
includes a restaurant,
convention space or
similar. An option is to
use a reduced rate
(percentage) of the
accessory uses. For
example, a restaurant
within a hotel would
need to provide
parking at 50 percent
of the standard
restaurant parking
requirement.
Health Facilities
a. Hospitals
b. Long-Term
Care Facilities
0.5/bed
1/bed
.33/bed
plus 1/two
employees
on major shift
The City may want to
also identify
additional parking for
physicians or other
staff. These tend to
be high
Industrial: Employee
Parking
0.5/ employee .75/employee The City may want to
clarify if this is based
on the largest shift or
similar metric.
Notes:
Providing a minimum and maximum parking standard (range), provides for slight variations in the
parking standard. Potential concerns include: if the proposed range is too small, the variations will be
77
minimal and may not result in the desired outcome, triggering alternative compliance or variances.
On the other extreme, ranges that are too great can reduce the potential for achieving greater use
of TDM practices and/or other alternative compliance measures. A larger range can also lead to
over-parking of sites resulting in less efficient use of land and reductions in transit usage.
The specific recommendations related to the proposed parking standards are based on Kimley-
Horn’s zoning code work in other communities, our best practices research conducted for this and
similar studies around the country, the community values as expressed in related City of Fort Collins
plans, parking utilization data conducted by City staff and finally feedback received through the
extensive public outreach efforts as part of this study.
Recommendation #2: Alternative Compliance Based on TDM or a Parking Impact Study
Built into the Minimum Parking Requirements Matrix is a section that allows for reduction of the
requirement based on providing additional parking demand mitigation strategies
Two other options which are included on the Minimum Parking Requirements Matrix are to provide a
Parking Impact Study or utilize the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
The basic concept is to provide a service to helps private employers access a range of parking and
trip reduction tools and programs. Connecting developers to resources that can help them reduce
parking demands (and therefore potentially lower the amount of parking they would be required to
provide) is win-win scenario. The key is having a well-developed program that offers a range of
choices that developers or businesses can choose from depending on the type of business or
development they are providing.
In most of the programs researched (Washington DC, Arlington County VA, Boulder CO, Ann Arbor
MI), defined packages of TDM strategies are available that employers or developers can sign-up for.
There is typically a multi-year commitment required and agreements must be signed to qualify for
parking reductions as part of an alternative compliance component of a development review
process.
A related trend in the world of urban public transport lies in mobility systems that will provide bicycles,
cars and other mobility services on demand. In the future, many mobility assets will be shared instead
of owned by users. Convenient and reliable lifestyle services will be offered to “connected” citizens
who will be able to easily access these combined mobility services via their smartphones. Integrated
mobility services are emerging as a smart alternative to vehicle ownership in a rapidly urbanizing
world. They offer new and easy to access options that can be tailored to better meet customer
needs and also address a range of issues related to evolving urban environments.
78
Combined mobility services take the concept of shared-use to a new level, recognizing that the
desires for flexibility and efficiency which are driving consumers to shared-use mobility solutions are
further advanced when those solutions can be offered in an integrated platform. For those providers
of mobility solutions that make the transition to combined mobility services, these developments offer
a real opportunity to deliver sustainable growth over the next decades.
A draft example of a TDM checklist is shown in Attachment 3. Implementation of this
recommendation is outside the scope of this project, however, FC Moves has a budget offer to
create and staff a TDM Program.
Parking Impact Study
Developers may opt to engage a professional parking consultant at their expense to conduct a
parking impact study. As the scope of these studies can vary, a matrix outlining a recommended
scope to ensure that the essential information needed by City planning staff is provided in
Attachment 2.
Costs for such a study vary and can range from as low of $5,000 to a high of $15,000 depending on
the exact scope.
Recommendation #3: On-street Paid Parking
The direction from the Planning and Zoning Board to support on-street paid parking as a primary
strategy is also strongly supported by the consultant team.
Implementing paid on-street parking in targeted areas and eventually in other areas of the TOD
Overlay Zone as the corridor matures has several benefits. Charging for parking is the most direct
way to both reduce parking demand and helps ensure the availability and turnover of on-street and
improve the utilization of off-street spaces. This strategy also begins to develop an on-going funding
mechanism to support parking infrastructure investment. During the study that produced the
Downtown Parking Plan the lack of a strategy to fund future parking infrastructure was labeled as a
“huge unfunded liability”. City parking staff have run several scenarios regarding potential revenue
generation and the City finance staff have concluded that on-street paid parking is a viable option
that has the capability of generating adequate revenues from which revenue bonds could be issued
sufficient to fund multiple parking structures over time.
On-Street parking has other benefits as well. Beyond adding to the overall supply of parking, on-
street parking slows traffic, creates better pedestrian environments by buffering sidewalks from
moving vehicles, increases the viability of retail shops and services, and contributes to reducing the
amount of land used for off-street lots.
79
There have been many technological advances related to on-street parking technology and related
management applications. Appendix F provides a detailed overview of the latest in on-street
parking technologies and management strategies.
Implementation of this recommendation is outside the scope of this project, however, Parking
Services has a budget offer to create an on-street paid parking pilot program. As part of the
proposed project, Parking Services will be further examining all the elements of on-street paid
parking, including; where and when it is most appropriate to be administered, how much it will cost
and the payment structure, technology, details of management, use of revenue, and further
stakeholder outreach.
Recommendation #4: Public/Private Partnerships for Parking Structures
This recommendation encourages the City to develop a comprehensive approach that emphasizes
leveraging parking infrastructure investment as a key element of community and economic
development. Parking investments, made as part of an overall TOD business development strategy,
should carry an expectation of a 5 to1 return on public funds invested. To achieve this level of return,
projects that offer significant shared parking benefits are strongly encouraged.
To promote the effective management of existing and future public parking resources in the TOD
Overlay Zone, a parking district approach which can coordinate and management parking and
access management related issues should be strongly supported. Parking districts offer a mechanism
to invest and manage parking resources within a defined geographic area.
Often times, the overriding goals of a district are actually more akin to a business or general
improvement district that also manages parking as a tool for overall district management. As the
district matures, and development intensifies, the role of the parking district and the types of
management programs offered will evolve. In other communities, parking related revenues are
often reinvested within the districts to support other strategic district development goals creating
‘balanced and sustainable district access strategy’.
Another strategy would be to adopt the “Business Scorecard Development Approach” for TOD
Overlay Zone in conjunction with the development of a parking infrastructure investment strategy
that leverages shared parking to the maximum degree.
One approach to developing a downtown or area business strategy is to establish specific targets for
housing, office, retail and hotel development within the district. This business strategy would ideally
reflect the shared vision for the area and the community at large as defined in a city-wide strategic
or master plan. This recommendation may be more appropriate as an element of the City’s Urban
Redevelopment Authority (URA) given that this agency oversees tax increment financing and related
investment funds.
A model business score card can also incorporate several key parking elements. Key elements can
include:
80
Identification of projects that support defined district master plan goals. Targeting specific
development projects that move the forward the shared vision of the district is especially important
for helping the district achieve its desired goals. In the case of the Fort Collins TOD Overlay Zone
stated goals include such elements as: increased development density (mid-rise developments of
four to five stories), compact in-fill development, walkability and good urban design, limited sharable
parking assets, etc. There are often many potential development projects to consider, but prioritizing
those projects that help move the community forward in the desired direction deserve special
consideration and can provide justification for providing reasonable incentives.
As part of the parking support policies being proposed, maximizing the benefits of shared parking is
an important consideration. Because of the cost of investing in structured parking, it is in the City’s
interest to get the most benefit from these public fund investments. Consider, for example, the
investment in a 600 space public parking facility at $30,000 per space – an $18,000,000 investment.
This investment could help support a variety different development projects.
One issue that came up frequently in the public engagement process but that can also be linked
with the concept of leveraging public/private partnership was the fact that while many citizens in
Fort Collins may use alternative transportation, vehicle ownership is still important to them. Having
reasonable access vehicles was considered very important. Therefore a “storage parking” solution
that would allow individuals to store their cars remotely, but still access them via the MAX line is a
potential solution.
The City could enter into a public-private partnership to provide a certain percentage of parking
spaces within a parking facility (surface and/or structured) which would be provided as “storage or
remote parking”. Funds to support this recommendation could come in the form of TIF revenues
generated within the TOD Overlay zone to offset storage parking development costs OR through the
provision of development incentives utilizing increases in density and/or floor area ratio (FAR). Funds
generated (potentially dedicate a portion/percentage of revenues, dedicated line item, or similar)
within the TOD Overlay Zone should be used exclusively for purposes related to the location, design,
construction and maintenance of new municipal parking structures to serve the area. If determined
that additional parking is not needed at the current time, based on continued growth within the
community and this corridor, additional parking facilities will be necessary to minimize impacts on the
adjacent neighborhoods; as such, the City should begin to identify those locations now in order to
minimize the lag time between planning and development of these sites.
Implementation of this recommendation requires establishment of criteria the City would use when
considering proposals for joint public-private parking investments. While this additional work falls
outside the scope of the TOD Parking Study, Economic Health staff is already discussing ways to
incorporate public-private partnerships for parking structures into its economic strategies.
81
REFERENCES
1. Urban and Economic Development Division. Parking Alternatives: Making Way for Urban Infill and Brownfield
Redevelopment. Report EPA-231-K-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1999.
2. Development, Community and Environment Division. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review
of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. Report EPA-231-R-01-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January 2001.
3. Holtzclaw, J., Clear, R., Dittmar, H., Goldstein, D., and P. Haas. Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-
Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San
Francisco. Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 25, no. 1 (2002), pp. 1-27.
4. Transportation and Land Use Coalition and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Housing Shortage /
Parking Surplus: Silicon Valley’s Opportunity to Address Housing Needs and Transportation Problems with
Innovative Parking Policies. Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Oakland, CA, 2002.
5. Shoup, D. Truth in Transportation Planning. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, forthcoming 2003.
6. Millard-Ball, A. Putting on their Parking Caps. Planning, April 2002, pp. 16-21.
7. Bureau of Planning. Chapter 33.510, Part Two. Title 33: Planning and Zoning Code. City of Portland, Oregon,
May 1999.
8. Smith, T.P. Flexible Parking Requirements. Planning Advisory Services Report 377. American Planning
Association, 1983.
9. Transect Codeware Company. Section 6.5, Mixed-Function Parking Standards. SmartCode, verion 5.2, p. 8.
10. Shoup, D. In-Lieu of Required Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 18, no. 4 (Summer
1999).
11. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. City CarShare Vehicle Ownership Survey. Unpublished survey for
City CarShare, San Francisco, 2002.
12. Senator for Building and Environment. Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability. City of Bremen, Germany,
2002
13. Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 17, no. 1 (Fall
1997), pp. 3-20.
14. Urban and Economic Development Division. $mart Investments for City and County Managers: Energy,
Environment and Community Development. Report EPA-231-R-98-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 1998.
15. South Florida Regional Planning Council. Downtown Kendall Master Plan. 1998.
82
16. Pratt, R. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Web
Document 12, March 2000. http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_12.pdf. Accessed April 30,
2003.
17. Shoup, D. Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies. Transport Policy,
vol. 4, no. 4 (1997), pp. 201-216.
18. Shoup, D. An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements. Journal of the American Planning
Association, vol. 61, no. 1 (Winter 1995), pp. 14-28.
19. Mark Gander, Principal Planner; Director of Urban Mobility and Development at AECOM and Board of
Directors, Green Parking Council.
20. http://mitpress2.mit.edu/books/chapters/0 262017334chap1.pdf
21 G.B. Arrington, Cervero, Robert, Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program
Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel (2008), available
at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf
22 Donald Shoup, “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements,” Transportation Research Part A 33 (1999):
549-574. Available as a free download from http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu
83
Additional Resources
The following documents were provided to City staff on a CD as additional resources.
1. U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies
2. Residential On-Site Carsharing and Off-Street Parking Policy in the San Francisco Bay Area
3. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements – Forinash
4. City Carshare - Best-Practices
5. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel
6. Parking Solutions - Examples and Case Studies
7. Exposed: America's Totally Inconsistent Minimum Parking Requirements
8. FHWA - Parking Pricing Primer
9. Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference
10. How Flexible Parking Requirements Spur Economic Development: Lessons from Santa Monica
11. Parking Reforms for a Livable City - Centre for Science and Environment - New Delhi, India
12. Parking Guidelines for Downtown Kirkland, WA
13. Parking Mgmt. Strategies for Downtown Kirkland, WA
14. Montgomery County MD Parking Policy Study – Summary
15. Montgomery County Parking Policy Study – Spring 2011 – ZAP Summary
16. The Myth of Free Parking - Transit for Livable Communities
17. New Suburbanism: Reinventing Inner-Ring Suburbs
18. NYC Parking Best Practices
19. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability – Litman – VTPI
20. Parking Management Tools - A Discussion of Time-Limits and Pay Parking
21. Westport Parking Study & Commercial Design Guidelines – City Council Presentation
84
22. Parking Best Practices – A Review of Zoning Policies and Regulations in Select US and
International Cities
23. Parking Code Guidance: Case Studies and Model Provisions - MTC Smart Growth Technical
Assistance: Parking Reform Campaign
24. Parking Management - Strategies, Evaluation and Planning – Litman – VTPI
25. Article: Yes, Parking Reform is Possible – Shoup
26. Policies for Shareable Cities: Transportation
27. Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements - Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup
28. Parking Study for Dania Beach Parking - Implementation Plan – Kimley-Horn
29. Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices - Governor’s Office of Smart
Growth, Annapolis, MD
30. Smart Growth Network Multimodal Incentives
31. Strategies and Tools to Implement Transportation-Efficient Development: A Reference Manual
Phase 2 of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment Decision-Making
32. TOD and Transit Station Area Principles – Kimley-Horn
33. Tools for Mixed-Income TOD - Douglas Shoemaker/Center for Transit Oriented Development
34. The Transportation Prescription - Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform In
America
35. Arlington County Residential Transportation Performance Monitoring Study - Sept-2013
85
APPENDICES
(Available upon request)
86
Appendix A – City Parking Analysis for TOD Ordinance Change
Appendix B – Selected City Zoning Codes
Appendix C – Community Engagement Meetings PowerPoint Presentation
Appendix D – Community Engagement Questionnaire Results Summary
Appendix E – Sample Parking Development Review Form w Graph
Appendix F – On-Street Parking Technology White Paper
Appendix G – Parking as an Economic Development Strategy White Paper
May 27, 2014
Introduction
' Spillover parking from multi-family development
' Adoption of temporary ordinance for minimum parking
requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone, expires in Sept. ‘14
' Directed by Council to conduct TOD Parking Study to create
permanent parking requirements
PROCESS OVERVIEW
' Consultant
' City policies
' Best practices and
literature review
' Community
engagement
' Data collection
' TBL & other
considerations
' Alternatives and
Recommendations
P&Z and PAB Recommendations
1. Minimum parking
requirements for
residential and
commercial
2. Options for alternative
compliance
3. On-street paid parking
4. Parking structures
PROPOSED MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS*
Multi-family & Mixed-use Dwelling Parking Requirements
*Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless in a structure.
Rent-by-the-Bedroom
Multi-family Dwellings
# bedrooms
Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.75
Senior Multi-family Dwellings
# bedrooms
Parking spaces/bedroom
All Bedrooms 0.3
Multifamily Dwellings
# bedrooms/unit
Parking spaces/unit
One or less 0.75
Two 1.0
Three 1.25
Four and above 1.5
Commercial Parking Requirements
' Applicability
New buildings greater than 5,000 s.f.
Not for ‘change of use’ or an existing building
' Minimum Parking Requirement:
Approximately 50% of existing maximums
' Alternative Compliance already in the Land Use Code
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE*
Multi-family & Mixed-use Dwelling Parking Requirements
*Maximum of 50% reduction without Parking Impact
Study or Transportation Demand Management.
Demand Mitigation Strategy Parking Requirement Reduction
Affordable Housing (< 50% AMI) 50%
Transit Passes 10%
Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share
Within 1,000 feet of MAX Station 10%
Shared Parking Based on Study Results
Off-Site Parking 1:1
Bicycle LOS A 10%
Parking Impact Study Based on Proposal
Transportation Demand Management Based on Proposal
On-Street Paid Parking
' Reduce demand and create turn-over
' Utilize the latest management technology
' Parking Services has a BFO to pilot a program
Implementation
Where appropriate
When applied
Pay amount and structure
Management
Use of funds
Further outreach
Parking Structures
' Public-Private Partnerships
' Economic development-oriented parking policy and parking
district
' Business Scorecard
' Vehicle Storage
' Economic Health will take the baton on this
recommendation
THANK YOU!
P&Z and PAB Recommendations
1. Minimum parking
requirements for
residential and
commercial
2. Options for alternative
compliance
3. On-street paid parking
4. Parking structures
Does Council support these recommendations?
Ram's Crossing 3/19/2014 6:00 AM 31 60 137 495 14.40%
Ram's Crossing 3/19/2014 3:00 PM 47 55 137 495 16.14%
Summit on College 3/18/2014 6:00 AM 115 121 341 834 20.09%
Summit on College 3/18/2014 2:00 PM 85 308 341 834 33.45%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 3/20/2014 6:00 AM 45 69 411 142 20.61%
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Apartments 3/20/2014 3:15 PM 236 95 411 142 59.86%
exempt
Exemptions
N/A Off-street parking not
required in downtown
area(s) if project does not
exceed maximum FAR
See above Parking
Reductions
Within C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial), no parking
required to be provided if 8
or less spaces required; 9 or
more required parking
spaces may be reduced by
providing streetscape-type
improvements including
transit stop can reduce
required parking by 4
spaces. Outdoor restaurant
may exempt parking
requirements for first 20 seats
Shared Parking Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reduction in Parking
with TDM Measures
Yes; each car/van pool
space = 4 required spaces
Yes Yes (subsidies provided by
City; transit information
provided, etc.)
Yes Yes (5% reduction with car
pool program; 5% reduction
if motorcycle parking
provided)
Other Standards
Bicycle parking required
with many land uses
Bicycle parking required
with many land uses
Bicycle parking required
with many land uses
Bicycle parking required
with many land uses
Bicycle parking required
with many land uses; every
5 bicycle spaces reduces
total vehicle spaces
(required) by 1
Up to 30% of parking supply
can be compact
15% (max) compact car
designation
City contracted with zipcar
(downtown area)
Bike sharing station with 15
docks and 8 shared bicycles
reduces vehicle parking by
3 spaces; additional
standards may apply
Parking location /
distance from site
On-street (alternative
compliance/exceptions to
general office)
N/A Parking can be provided up
to 600' from site (pedestrian
route)
Parking can be provided up
to 300' from site
Parking can be provided up
to 1/4 mile from site
Parking can be provided up
to 500' from site
Commuter parking
incentives / programs
TBD N/A N/A Transit information provided N/A N/A
Pool parking provided;
transit service (hours)
extended)
Commuter programs
provided
City offers commuter
services (bus, car pool, van
pool)
10 + employees requires
commuter program
20 + parking spaces requires
carpool parking (5 spaces
or 5% of total)
Can pay in-lieu of parking
fee (where a public parking
fund exists)
Stacked Parking (w/ Valet)
USE
*1
The following parking standards are provided for comparison purposes based on the Peer City Reviews and current Fort Collins Parking requirements
PARKING STANDARDS SUMMARY
Note: This will be 11x17 in final report to improve legibility.
UGC IC Other
Pedestrian & Cyclist Orientation 0% 4% 4% 4%
Public Transit Access 0% 24% 12% 5%
Parking 0% 6% 4% 6%
Trip Reduction Incentives 0% 23% 11% 7%
TOTAL 0% 57% 31% 22%
TABLE F TOTAL REDUCTION ACHIEVED 0%
1%
B3a Located in an UGC or within 1600 yards of a future Rapid Transit Station 24% 12% 0%
B3b
Located within 1200 yards a transit route with 15 minute headways (or
less) or is located in a designated mixed use corridor or node. Note:
Points are awarded for either B3a, B3b or B3c only. Please choose
whichever represents the highest order of transit.
-
5%
3%
TABLE F Scoring Summary
FINAL SCORE RATING
50 - 65 ****
TDM-SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT
40 -49 ***
30 - 39 **
24 - 29 *
0 - 23 X Non-TDM-Supportive Development
or C3 only. Please choose whichever applies after consulting with City of Fort Collins
Planning.
C3
15
Provides no more than the minimum number of parking spaces, as required by applicable Zoning
By-Law. Note: Points are awarded for either C1, C2, or C3 only. Please choose whichever
applies.
C4 10
Implements paid parking on part or all of the site (e.g. parking permits, paid parking zones near
main entrances)
C5 3
Provides priority parking for carpooling/vanpooling participants equivalent to 5% of employee
spaces
C6 5
Commercial Uses: Provide car-share spaces equivalent to 2% of building occupants
C7 3
Parking is not located on major street frontage or between a road right of way and the
building facade.
C8 5
25% to 50% of parking is located underground or in a structure