Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/27/2014 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC) Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Steve Roy Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson City Attorney City Manager City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. City Council Work Session May 27, 2014 6:00 PM  CALL TO ORDER. 1. Platte River Power Authority Strategic Planning Update. (staff: Kevin Gertig, Steve Catanach, John Phelan; 15 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) Ms. Jackie Sargent, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) and other Platte River staff will provide an update on strategic planning - with a particular focus on efforts toward developing Platte River’s next Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). 2. Housing Affordability Policy Study. (staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Bruce Hendee, Mary Atchison; 15 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) The Housing Affordability Policy Study began in January 2014. Denver based Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) is the lead consulting firm assisting staff with defining the current community housing needs and identifying future trends for the purpose of proposing recommendations on policy and regulatory programs the City might use to provide housing choices for all residents. EPS has presented options for Council consideration. Staff will present these options for direction on which merit further inquiry and whether there are additional options that should be considered. CITY COUNCIL City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study. (staff: Seth Lorson, Laurie Kadrich; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) 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. 4. 7th Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Timnath and the City of Fort Collins. (staff: Laurie Kadrich; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide planned and orderly development of urban services along the I-25 Corridor and to establish appropriate Growth Management and Influence Areas to support such development.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: May 27, 2014 Steven Catanach, Light & Power Operations Manager Kevin Gertig, Interim Utilities Executive Director John Phelan, Energy Services Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Platte River Power Authority Strategic Planning Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ms. Jackie Sargent, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority (Platte River) and other Platte River staff will provide an update on strategic planning - with a particular focus on efforts toward developing Platte River’s next Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The work session will provide Council the opportunity to learn more about Platte River’s resource planning studies - in support of their strategic initiative to diversify the future mix of electric resources serving member/owner Municipalities (Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont and Loveland). BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Platte River’s Board of Directors approved a new Strategic Plan in December 2014 - located at the link below: <http://www.prpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PRPA_SP14_Web.pdf> As outlined in this plan, Platte River is conducting an analysis of alternatives for decreasing system level greenhouse gas emissions including an identification of the associated cost implications using Colorado’s Climate Action Plan as a guide (20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050). Platte River selected, installed and is running electric system modeling software (EPIS/Aurora) and has retained consultants to assist in the analysis associated with its 2014 IRP. Platte River plans to conduct detailed modeling for a set of resource scenarios that includes reduced surplus sales, expanded energy efficiency and demand side management programs, increased renewable resources (wind and solar), natural gas combined cycle generation and distributed generation. Alternatives will be presented to the Platte River Board of Directors for their consideration as part of Platte River’s 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). A draft IRP is currently scheduled to be provided to the Board of Directors in December 2014. Listening sessions and other public information activities related to the IRP were held in March and April (in all four owner communities). Background information on the planning process that was presented during the listening sessions can be accessed at the link below. Presentation slides and narrated video are provided. www.prpa.org/irp <http://www.prpa.org/irp> Efforts to update Fort Collins’ Climate Action Plan (CAP) will be closely coordinated with Platte River’s resource planning process. More aggressive penetration levels for options studied by Platte River and new resource options will be required to meet the CAP goals of an 80% reduction by 2030 (relative to the 20% target by 2020), requiring additional modeling/analysis. Packet Pg. 3 May 27, 2014 Page 2 City and Platte River staff have identified significant common ground for joint modeling and other analysis that will provide information regarding resource options and associated costs to inform planning activities of both organizations. A collaborative approach would also provide for economies of scale in the analysis efforts. However, given the additional modeling work and consulting support needed for the Fort Collins CAP, additional costs will be incurred - to be funded by Fort Collins (Utilities budget). An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is being developed to facilitate coordination between the entities. It is anticipated that this IGA would be proposed to the Platte River Board for their approval on May 29 and is scheduled for proposal to the Fort Collins City Council for approval on June 3. Packet Pg. 4 DATE: STAFF: May 27, 2014 Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer Mary Atchison, Director of Social Sustainability WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Housing Affordability Policy Study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housing Affordability Policy Study began in January 2014. Denver based Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) is the lead consulting firm assisting staff with defining the current community housing needs and identifying future trends for the purpose of proposing recommendations on policy and regulatory programs the City might use to provide housing choices for all residents. EPS has presented options for Council consideration. Staff will present these options for direction on which merit further inquiry and whether there are additional options that should be considered. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Has the study identified all the best options? 2. Which of these options would best support a socially sustainable housing market in the City? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Staff is providing a summary of the work that has been completed so far on the Housing Affordability Policy Study. We are seeking guidance at a relatively early stage in this project for maximum efficiency. Council direction will determine how many options staff should research further and design program recommendations around. In the City’s agreement with Alberta Development Partners for the redevelopment of Foothills mall, a provision was included that reads: The Project shall pay any affordable housing fees that may be enacted by the City Council on or before December 1, 2014, as if such fees had been in place and applicable to the Project. Any affordable housing impact fee that may be adopted as part of such requirements shall be paid by the Developer when due for the Project, except that for any portion of the Project developed prior to the imposition of the fee, such fee shall be paid no later than sixty days after adoption. Because of this provision and because Council had identified Affordable Housing as a priority area, Social Sustainability was asked to submit an interim budget offer for a study on the effectiveness and feasibility of adding inclusionary zoning ordinances for the purpose of increasing the available housing inventory in the City of Fort Collins, and to determine if this is the best strategy to pursue. When defining the scope of the study, both City leadership and the consultants determined that the original inquiry was too narrow. The scope of this study was broadened to look at numerous affordable housing program options and the study name was changed from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Study to the Housing Affordability Policy Study. The deadline to have a solution in place by December 1, 2014 remains and has been driving the timing of this project. Packet Pg. 5 May 27, 2014 Page 2 The citizens of Fort Collins agree with Council that affordable housing is a critical issue affecting our community. Affordable housing was identified as one of the top issues in the most recent Citizen’s Survey administered by the City. Interest in this topic was echoed in further City public outreach though the City’s online IdeaLab and in group discussions, including more than 350 feedback cards collected from 15 different groups in eight different segments of the population. Also, the issue of lack of affordable housing was raised in the Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis which will be used to prioritize the work of the Social Sustainability Department. Research conducted by EPS confirms that sales prices and rent rates have increased in our community. They found that home prices increased at a rate of 2.8% annually from 2000 to 2012 for a total average increase of 42%. For rental rates, EPS found an annual increase of 3.2% since 2000, but anecdotally, many landlords state they have increased their rental rates between 8 to 10% in the last few years. A technical team of City staff was created to assist EPS in their work. Representatives from Economic Health, Finance, Environmental Services, Planning, City Attorney’s Office, Communications and Public Involvement, as well as Social Sustainability serve on that team. Three Stakeholder Workshops were held to inform the study. Specifically invited stakeholders were from the development community, government and CSU personnel, and housing advocates. Stakeholders were also asked to invite up to two additional people to participate in the process. This was to insure that all interested parties were included as early in the process as possible. All three workshops were well attended with up to 50 people at each workshop. The first workshop focused on regulatory programs, alternative funding sources and best practices from around the country. The second workshop looked at current conditions and future trends. This was organized into four topic areas: Ownership and Commuting Patterns; Rental and Student Housing; Housing Cost Components; and Distressed Populations. In the final workshop, EPS had stakeholders respond to options that might help Fort Collins produce more affordable housing units and provide more housing choice to all residents. In addition to the Stakeholder Workshops, staff has presented, or will present, information about this study to several City Boards and Commissions including: the Affordable Housing Board (who is acting in an advisory capacity); the Senior Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Economic Advisory Commission, the Community Development Block Grant Commission, as well as the Council Finance Committee. Staff has also presented, or plans to present, to outside groups such as: the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Vida Sana, Circles Leaders with the Education and Life Training Center, and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. It is anticipated that multiple presentations may be needed at different stages of this study. One public open house was held on May 14 that attracted about 30 attendees, and another public open house is scheduled for May 21. See Public Engagement Summary (Attachment 1). A triple bottom line analysis was conducted. Since this issue is so complex, more assessments will be required as the project proceeds. Staff tested the City of Eugene Triple Bottom Line Analysis Tool on one of the presented options - relaxing the current occupancy rule. The tool concluded that the impact on social equity and economic prosperity were slightly positive, and the impact on environmental health was positive. The completed tool is attached as Attachment 2. EPS has completed extensive research and is in the process of compiling their report. They have completed the chapter of the report providing recommendations for policy options. (Attachment 3). EPS found that generally our housing system is healthy but there are distressed populations that do not have adequate housing choice. Also, there are trends that suggest housing costs are escalating which is translating into higher purchase prices and rents. With current low vacancy rates, rents have increased causing more Fort Collins residents to pay more than 30% of their income on rent. According to the Social Sustainability Gap Analysis, 59% of renters and 28% of home owners are rent burdened, meaning the amount they must pay for housing makes it difficult to have enough income for the rest of their needs. EPS looked at both home ownership and rental markets. They found seniors, people with disabilities, homeless individuals and people with household income less than $25,000 to be distressed populations. First time home buyers are also having trouble finding affordable homes, especially as the local market heats up with winning offers for homes coming in above asking price and even above appraised value. This is further aggravated by the lack of inventory for for-sale attached products such as condominiums and town homes. EPS also analyzed data about our community and tried to estimate the impact of students on our overall housing inventory. Providing affordable housing is difficult and complex. This is a local and national problem. There is no one Packet Pg. 6 May 27, 2014 Page 3 solution that fits all communities. After reviewing many regulatory programs and alternative funding sources with the City technical team and the stakeholders, EPS reduced the number of strategies for Fort Collins to consider. EPS have provided options to be considered by the City to address the needs of the identified distressed populations and create more housing choice for all residents. These options fall into the following categories: Legislative; Cost Reductions; Regulatory; and Alternative Funding Sources. Important to note as well is that EPS is not offering inclusionary housing ordinances or commercial/residential linkage programs as relevant options. Based on their analysis of the current conditions in Fort Collins, EPS found that the gaps in home ownership opportunity were not as prevalent as gaps in the rental market. This is important because Colorado has legal impediments to the use of inclusionary housing ordinances for the purpose of developing rental housing. One of these reasons is that rent control is unconstitutional in Colorado. EPS found that inclusionary housing was best used in cities with many second homes, with very large homes, or when the gap in affordability is extreme. Because the gap between what is affordable based on area median income and what the market is offering is not that large currently or historically in Fort Collins, EPS does not find the conditions in our city appropriate for a mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance or policy. It might make it difficult to sell units with affordability restrictions if their offering price is too close to what buyers can find in unrestricted units. As detailed later, EPS does present the option of an incentive policy ordinance as a voluntary regulatory choice. Furthermore, EPS is not recommending a linkage program based on many of the same factors and because they face extreme opposition from the development community and are not deemed positive in a city with a competitive economic development culture. Legislative options include:  Lobbying the State Legislature about construction defect litigation legislation that is limiting the production of attached for-sale housing products;  Supporting a State Low Income Tax Credit program; and  Supporting any additional state-wide affordable housing funding since cities throughout the state are experiencing difficulties providing housing to the lowest income categories. Cost reduction options include:  Revisiting the City’s current fee waiver eligibility requirements. Currently, only Fort Collins Housing Authority projects providing housing for disabled, formerly homeless or households making 30% or less of the area median income are eligible for fee waivers. Other jurisdictions provide fee waivers based on the nature of the project as affordable housing regardless of whether the developer is a for-profit, a not- for-profit or a housing authority;  Creating a streamlined process for affordable housing projects;  Examining the marginal cost structure for permit and plan check fees to build in incentives, or remove disincentives, to building smaller units; and  Reduce or remove minimum square footage requirements for homes to allow for new housing types. Regulatory options are offered in four categories. 1. EPS suggests reviewing the City’s 3 unrelated occupancy rule and consider: a) relaxing the rule to 4 unrelated city-wide; b) relaxing to 4 unrelated in certain zones or for certain populations such as seniors; c) streamlining the process for exception from the 3 unrelated rule for owner-occupied housing or for seniors; or d) consider a Landlord Licensing Program. 2. EPS suggests considering an incentive policy ordinance that would provide for the production or affordable units or payment-in-lieu for projects receiving specified exceptions or adjustments permitted by code, or when a non-housing public financing subsidy is negotiated. 3. Also, EPS suggests that we consider changing our Growth Management Area or alternatively look at ways to remove impediments on available land. Specifically, they recommend looking at providing infrastructure improvements in the northeast quadrant of the city (Mountain Vista area). Packet Pg. 7 May 27, 2014 Page 4 4. Lastly, EPS urges the City to address manufactured housing and mobile homes as a valuable source of affordable housing. One option to do this is to consider the creation of an affordable housing preservation easement program that would allow the owner of a mobile home park to agree to use their land as a mobile home park or for affordable housing for a period of time. This would be a voluntary program and the city could decide to offer this only to parks without failing infrastructure. Other options would be to explore additional ways to preserve existing high quality mobile home parks and/or streamline current regulations to promote the creation of new manufactured or mobile home communities. Alternative funding sources were put forward as potential long term options by EPS to raise funds to be used for affordable housing. These options would require voter approval. Any of these options could be time limited. These options include:  A new excise tax;  A dedicated sales tax; or  A new mill levy property tax. Also, in the category of alternative funding sources, is the question of what is the best use of the land the City holds currently in the Land Bank Program. ESP states that we can put this land into a Community Land Trust or a foundation similar to the Urban Land Conservancy whereby ownership of the land is held in perpetuity with development conducted through long term land leases. It may be time to consider selling all or some of the properties for the development of affordable housing and putting the proceeds of such sale back into the affordable housing fund for the purpose of purchasing more land. The Affordable Housing Board has recently toured the Land Bank Program properties and has plans to review this program in their 2104 work plan. Staff is using this Council work session to obtain council direction relatively early in the process to assure the study is providing Council with the right information, especially since this study is on an accelerated time line. With Council input, staff and EPS can focus on a reduced number of options to develop into detailed program recommendations. It is anticipated that many, if not all, boards and commissions may request a follow-up visit when this project is further along. Staff has not formulated recommendations at this juncture. ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Engagement Summary (DOCX) 2. Triple Bottom Line Analysis (PDF) 3. Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (DOCX) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PPTX) Packet Pg. 8 Housing Affordability Study 4/01/14 Public Engagement Plan 1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE Housing Affordability Policy Study OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL Very high – Collaboration level (see attached Public Engagement Spectrum) BOTTOM LINE QUESTION What role should the City play in ensuring housing affordability for our community? PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES A broad range of approaches and techniques will be used to engage members of the public, key stakeholder groups, City departments led by Social Sustainability, City boards and commissions, and City Council in the Housing Affordability Policy Study – including public events, advisory committees, online engagement, and broadcast notification and outreach as appropriate. Planning Key Activities:  Gather input from City staff and consultant on Housing Affordability project goals, planning process, and relation to other previous and current planning efforts including but not limited to Economic Health, PDT, Finance, Environmental Services.  Seek to understand current and potential future opportunities, issues, and needs to address affordable housing Key Messaging:  We know affordable housing is an issue of importance to our community. The Housing Affordability Policy Study has begun to dive into this matter in the hopes of finding creative solutions and tools to create housing opportunities for all.  Consultants leading the project are Denver-based Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.  This study has only just begun. Materials presented at the first Stakeholders meeting on March 12, 2014, are available at fcgov.com/socialsustainability. 1. Who are the identified stakeholders? List. Residents, business leaders, CSU, property owners, local developers, multi-family housing managers, Fort Collins Housing Authority and other non-profit organizations, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, City boards and commissions, City departments, and other interested organizations and members of the public. 2. Will it be easy or difficult to engage “average” citizens? Explain. Ironically, while this issue directly affects many “average” citizens, this will be a tough issue to communicate to a broad audience. The key will be illustrating for average citizens examples that make it personal for people, businesses, etc. Illustrating the problem through a wide range of lenses – e.g. income levels – will help people understand the issue. Packet Pg. 9 Attachment2.1: Public Engagement Summary (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Housing Affordability Study 4/01/14 Public Engagement Plan 2 3. Is this a technical issue? Explain. Possibly, depending on the potential solutions that are selected through community input and stakeholder meetings. 4. What is the outreach timeline? Tie to project management timeline (For example, spring/summer so policy can be developed and possibly adopted by the end of 2014) 5. Which engagement tools seem most effective for this issue? Public engagement marketing materials could include but are not limited to:  Fact sheet  Press release  Social media (Facebook, Twitter)  Video  Road show materials (PP, posterboards, etc.)  Develop template for public meetings (assigned to CPIO)  Infographic(s) 6. Is there a media plan associated? If so, explain. Yes – but will depend on the results of Council work session and existing public outreach. 7. What are the biggest hurdles to this issue and process? Capturing multiple viewpoints from a broad audience about a very complicated issue 8. What are the resource issues? To be determined Stakeholder meetings February-April  Build initial stakeholder list (Sue/staff)  Hold two stakeholder workshops (Sue/staff)  Update fcgov.com/socialsustainability (Emily/Dianne)  Develop list of potential public outreach visits (Sue)  Develop initial messaging about process/conclusions to date (Emily)  Write memo to Council through Bruce re: update on process before press release is issued (Sue/Mary)  Write press release about public meetings (Emily)  Develop fact sheet about housing metrics/community dashboard info that illustrates the problem (Emily)  Reserve space in newsletters for stories drafted from press release (Emily) o Neighborhood News o Development Review newsletter o Economic Newsletter o Utilities newsletters, etc. Public outreach meetings: Senior Advisory Board (Sue) Fort Collins Board of Realtors Coloradoan Community Conversation Packet Pg. 10 Attachment2.1: Public Engagement Summary (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Housing Affordability Study 4/01/14 Public Engagement Plan 3 Circles Program leaders listening session April 24 May  Stakeholder meetings on March 12, April 16, May 7 (Sue/staff)  Public meetings: o May 2 Planning and Zoning Board o May 14, 10 a.m. to noon, Northside Aztlan Center o May 19, Council Finance Committee o May 21, 5:30-7:30 p.m. at Timberline Church. o May 27 work session  Issue social media announcements/reminders (Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, Idea Lab) (Emily)  Send out followup media advisory closer to each event (Emily)  Update fcgov.com/socialsustainability (Dianne)  Spotlight on fcgov.com  When appropriate, create feedback form for website (Emily through IT) o October 7, City Council  Follow up with web information after City Council work session (May 27) Public outreach meetings: Board of Realtors Government Affairs Committee (Sue) Economic Advisory Board May 21 Vida Sana Key Messages:  Based on the vision and frameworks developed by the community in previous phases, specific policy guidance, projects, and implementation strategies will be developed to achieve the direction initiated by City Council Packet Pg. 11 Attachment2.1: Public Engagement Summary (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Housing Affordability Study 4/01/14 Public Engagement Plan 4 •Email Blasts •Newsletters •Flyers •Press Releases •Fact Sheets/FAQs •fcgov.com/socialsustainabili ty •Facebook, Twitter, Idea Lab, YouTube, etc. •Online Surveys •Videos/Multimedia Event Coverage •Internal technical advisory team •Affordable Housing Board •Stakeholder Workshops •Open Houses •Roadshow Presentations Public Events Advisory Committees Broadcast Notification & Outreach Online Engagement Packet Pg. 12 Attachment2.1: Public Engagement Summary (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 1 HAPS City of Eugene TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS TOOL (TBL ) - July 09 Modified for use by the City of Fort Collins, CO (January 2014) Creating a sustainable community Vision: To provide world-class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innovation Mission: Exceptional service for an exceptional community. Values: Outstanding Service, Innovation and Creativity, Respect, Integrity, Initiative, Collaboration and Teamwork, Stewardship How to use the tool The TBL tool is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices will affect the social equity, environmental health and economic prosperity of the community. To facilitate a close and deliberate look at those effects, the tool should be used in the following circumstances: • When formulating a recommendation to the City Council about a policy, program, proposal or initiative in an Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Use this tool to inform the development of the proposal and then summarize the analysis in the AIS. • To aid in program reviews. • To help guide service improvements. • To evaluate the effects of significant budget changes. The TBL tool does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making. Brief description of Decision Please provide a brief description of your proposal – 100 words or less Relax the 3 unrelated occupancy rule to 4 unrelated and/or streamline existing exception process for 3 unrelated rule for certain populations. Staff lead(s): Please note staff name, position/division and phone number • Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist, 221-6753 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 2 NOTE: Reference documents -.The Housing Affordability Policy Study documents Social Equity Described as: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating to differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all. Goal/outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system with access to employment, food, housing, clothing, education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services, as well as to provide equal access to services and avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship status, race/ethnicity, gender, relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A community in which basic human rights is addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources to develop their capacity. This tool will help indentify how the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the decisions affect one or more social groups in the community. Areas of consideration in creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs, inclusion, community safety, culture neighborhoods, and advancing social equity. Analysis prompts • The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed. They are not a check list. Not all of the prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal- please include them in the analysis • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? Analysis/discussion The City has had an occupancy rule on the books since 1964. In the last decade this rule has been consistently enforced. It limits occupancy to “You plus 2”. This policy was designed as a good nuisance mitigation tool and has been successful for that purpose but has had some negative social impacts for housing affordability. 1. Meeting Basic Human Needs • How does the proposal impact access to food, shelter, employment, health care, educational and recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy living environment or social services? • Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of individuals, or the status of public health in our community? • How does this proposal contribute to helping people achieve and maintain an adequate standard of living, including housing, or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy families, or other resiliency factors? Allows some current housing stock to be used to its full potential. Seniors and students desire to live with peers and some houses are well suited to more than 3, but current policy limits this. This allows for more cost sharing which contributes to overall well- being, especially for low-income folks or those on a fixed income. Creating more flexibility allows more freedom to form larger households. Enhance stability for low-income families Paying less for housing frees up funds for other basic needs. Increased companionship usually increases sense of well-being Grandparents raising grandchildren could benefit from this. Packet Pg. 14 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 3 2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive • Are there any inequities to specific groups of people in this proposal, if so how will they be addressed? • Does this proposal meet the standards of the American’s with Disabilities Act? n/a • How does this proposal support the participation, growth and healthy development of our youth? Does it include Developmental Assets? • If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our community (i.e. youth, persons with disabilities, etc.) has their voice been heard in this proposal? • Does this proposal take into account language or cultural barriers? • If public comment is sought during development or implementation of this proposal what steps will be taken to include a wide variety of people (including disabled, non- English speakers, illiterate, working, etc)? Since student behavior is often the cause for complaints, arguably the current policy has a disparate impact on well-behaved residents. May affect development of youth if a low-income home owner is permitted to house more folks, increases household resources. May provide source of extra income. This is an issue that has polarized our residents and we have heard from them in both side of the issue. Certain cultures would embrace having larger households, although since “family” is permitted already this only applies to unrelated households. Public comment obtained from seniors, disabled and Spanish speakers, as well as development community and housing advocates through Stakeholder Workshops and Public Open Houses. If household income goes up too much, could reduce household’s access to public assistance (Cliff effect). Vulnerable populations could be impacted, positively or negatively. 3. Insuring Community Safety • How does this proposal address the specific safety and personal security needs of groups within the community, including women, people with disabilities, seniors, minorities, religious groups, children, immigrants, workers and others? • How does this proposal include crime prevention strategies, including environmental design? n/a • Does this proposal affect civil rights? Oversight the same as current policy. Increased crime potential from increased density. Potential for abuse. Not much difference from existing policy. Increase nuisances like parking violations and parties. 4. Culture • Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does this proposal affirm or deny the cultures of diverse communities? • How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic expression, cultural celebration or education of a cultural exchange? n/a Public split on issue - Some would welcome more options, but many fear that too many occupants in one house has a negative spill over affect in terms of parking and partying issues. Allows people who are culturally inclined to live with more people. Adding one more person is marginal change over existing policy. 4 5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods • How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins neighborhoods? • How are community members, stakeholders and interested parties provided with opportunities for meaningful participation in the decision making process of this proposal? • How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our community? Stakeholders included developers, CSU, and housing advocates who had a chance to opine at 3 Stakeholder Workshops. Two public open houses provided additional opportunities. Several boards and commissions were briefed and public comment was permitted then. While the public is not permitted to speak at City Council Work Sessions, they are permitted to observe and can contact the City Councilmembers directly either before or after the work session. May aggravate nuisance issues in neighborhoods with current high population of students. 6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity • What plans have been made to communicate about and share the activities and impacts of this proposal within the City organization and/or the community? • How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and cooperation between the City organization and community members? Outreach plan includes all mentioned above. This proposal will be seen as collaboration/cooperation by some and not others. There is a neighborhood awareness campaign run every fall for students that could be used to spread the word about any change. Social Equity summary Somewhat positive – Providing stable housing for more people is a marginal benefit in terms of number of residents affected, but allowing a homeless individual or others struggling to find any housing a place to call home is a social benefit. Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be: Negative Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Negative Somewhat Negative N Neutral Somewhat Negative Somewhat Positive Positive Packet Pg. 16 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 5 Environmental Health Described as: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, low carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevents pollution, reduces use, promotes reuses, recycles natural resources. Goal/outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions necessary for support of future generations of all species. Reduce the adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually review all activities to identify and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency; conserve water; reduce consumption and waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce reliance on non-renewable resources. Analysis prompts • The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed. They are not a check list. Not all of the prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal- please include them in the analysis • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? Brief analysis/discussion This concept is consistent with the concepts of Green Building, a program supported by the City of Fort Collins. Compact communities that efficiently use existing building stock have less negative impacts on many aspects of the natural environment including preservation of natural areas, water & air quality, water quantity, native habitat, habitat connectivity, and reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. The magnitude of environmental impact is tied to amount of population impacted. 1. Environmental Impact • Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or processes related to land, water, or air? • Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to the use of resources? • Will this proposal promote or support education in prevention of pollution, and effective practices for reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources? • Does this proposal require or promote the continuous improvement of the environmental performance of the City organization or community? • Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic elements of the community? More complete use of existing building stock reduces impact to land use by decreased need for new construction. Consequently, there is less impact to existing wildlife habitat and less soil disturbance leading to loss of stored carbon in native vegetation. Also encourages more efficient use of water (e.g., less lawns and landscapes to water) Packet Pg. 17 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 6 2. Climate change • Does this proposal directly generate or require the generation of greenhouse gases (such as through electricity consumption or transportation)? • How does this proposal align with the carbon reduction goals for 2020 goal adopted by the City Council? • Will this proposal, or ongoing operations result in an increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions? • How does this proposal affect the community’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse climate change activities? Reduced GHG emissions due to sharing of electricity, natural gas, and possibly transportation. Also significant reduction of lifecycle GHG emissions when there is a decreased need for new building construction. Aligns very well with City Carbon reduction goals May reduce commuting from outside city which reduces GHG emissions and air pollution. 3. Protect, preserve, restore • Does this proposal result in the development or modification of land resources or ecosystem functions? • Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat, greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or the urban growth boundary • How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore important ecological functions or processes? Reduced impact to land and ecosystem functions when less need for new construction. Results in preservation of natural habitat, migratory pathways and less rapid urban growth. More efficient use of electricity, natural gas, and water reduces impacts to natural ecological functioning (in-stream flows, less production of solid and hazardous wastes and fewer emissions from minerals and oil and gas extraction that can impair air quality). 4. Pollution prevention • Does this proposal generate, or cause to be generated, waste products that can contaminate the environment? • Does this proposal require or promote pollution prevention through choice of materials, chemicals, operational practices and/or engineering controls? • Does this proposal require or promote prevention of pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants regulated by the state or federal government? • Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or pollution? Less production of construction debris from manufacture of new buildings if existing building stock can be used more efficiently. Less air emissions of particulates, hazardous air pollutants, and GHGs associated with new construction. Less generation of solid waste by sharing of household products and food (e.g., occupants buy less appliances because they share them) Packet Pg. 18 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 7 5. Rethink, replace, reduce, reuse, recirculate/recycle • Does this proposal prioritize the rethinking of the materials or goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use, reuse of current natural resources or materials or energy products, or result in byproducts that are recyclable or can be re-circulated? Likely that less new housing will be built because it more fully uses existing housing. Reduction of source materials for new construction is a significant benefit of this policy. Likely to enhance sustainable practices. 6. Emphasize local • Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials, vendors, and or services to reduce resources and environmental impact of producing and transporting proposed goods and materials? • Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects somewhere other than the place where the action will take place? Does not appear to have a unique local perspective environmentally. Environmental Health summary Overall positive effect. Hard to find any downsides from an environmental point of view. Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would be: Negative Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Positive Positive Packet Pg. 19 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 8 Economic prosperity Described as: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a diverse economy, enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of family waged jobs. Goal/ outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities. Analysis prompts • The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed. They are not a check list. Not all of the prompts and issues will be relevant for any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a proposal- please include them in the analysis • Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal? Analysis/discussion This concept, along with other affordable housing solutions, addresses the following areas from the Economic Health Strategic Plan:  Talent Development – specifically workforce retention; and  Income Disparity – specifically for low-income and fixed-income individuals 1. Infrastructure and government • How will this proposal benefit the local economy? • If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it designed and will it be managed to optimize the use of resources including operating in a fossil fuel constrained society? • Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants, user fees or charges, staged development, or partnering with another agency? • How will the proposal impact business growth or operations (ability to complete desired project or remain in operation), such as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital?  The local economy will benefit from a greater number of the workforce being housed locally, especially true for low-income employees due to greater housing availability.  May have a slight negative impact on the construction industry if fewer residential units are constructed as a result of increased occupants per unit.  May potentially reduce in-commuting if more employees are able to find co-housing arrangements closer to their place of employment and possibly reduce transportation costs.  The administrative costs to the City will vary by option from neutral to a slight increase. 2. Employment and training • What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation within Larimer County? • Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities available? • How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local workforce?  No direct impacts  Indirect impact may include increase “personal capacity” due to the reduced stress associated with finding adequate and affordable housing Packet Pg. 20 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 9 3. Diversified and innovative economy • How does this proposal support innovative or entrepreneurial activity? • Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this proposal? • How will the proposal impact start-up or existing businesses or development projects?  Not Applicable 4. Support or develop sustainable businesses • What percentage of this proposal budget is for local services or products? Identify for Larimer County and State of Colorado. • Will this proposal enhance the tools available to businesses to incorporate more sustainable practices in operations and products? • Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially responsible leadership of local businesses or educate businesses on triple bottom line practices?  Not Applicable 5. Relevance to local economic development strategy  May increase the locally available workforce due to an increase in housing options and availability  Reduced individual costs for housing may result in greater income expended on other services or goods Packet Pg. 21 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 10 Generally supports low-income earners. Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity would be: Negative Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Positive Positive Packet Pg. 22 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 11 Real impact is to potentially lower housing costs for a portion of the population. Overall, the effect of this proposal on all TBL considerations would be: Negative Somewhat Negative Neutral Somewhat Positive Positive Proposal triple bottom line analysis summary Packet Pg. 23 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 2660.docx CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS The following policy options encapsulate a range of actions the City can take to address housing problems, recognizing the City’s purview regarding the related problems. Based on EPS’s analysis of economic, demographic, and housing market conditions in Fort Collins and the surrounding trade area, EPS recommends the City consider the following policy options. Magnitude of Housing Need In addition to documenting trends and conditions that establish where and to what degree problems exist, a critical component of the Housing Affordability Policy Study (HAPS) was to determine the magnitude of (ownership or rental) housing need and gaps. Cost-Burden A gap analysis, which is detailed in the full report, compares the City’s distribution of ownership and rental housing by cost against a distribution of the City’s owner and rental households by what they can afford in housing payment or rents. The analysis identifies the extent of the misalignment between housing inventory and households. The findings reveal that approximately 2,000 owner-occupied households are cost-burdened1 below incomes of $25,000, and approximately 8,000 renter-occupied households are cost-burdened below incomes of $25,000. To identify permanent-resident rental housing needs, the analysis nets out student- occupied units2 , yielding a net of between 1,100 and 2,300 renter-occupied households that are cost-burdened below incomes of $25,000. These findings do not imply that the City is in need of inventory per se – i.e. 2,000 more for-sale units and 1,100 to 2,300 more rental units. Rather, it provides context to understanding what the implications of future development may be if they are oriented solely to the upper-end of the market. That is, more high-end inventory can potentially exacerbate the cost-burden issues, but more middle- or affordable inventory can relax the cost-burden issue. Policy Objective Another approach to estimating the magnitude of housing need is from the policy perspective. That is, the objective would be for the community and its elected officials to identify a portion of the local workforce that the community believes it should target as a viable and ideal portion of its workforce that should live locally. 1 The term cost-burden refers to a situation in which a household is spending more than 30 percent of its pre-tax income on housing. This is a definition according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and used widely in housing policy research across the U.S. 2 Based on interviews and an extensive analysis of CSU data, EPS determined that there are between 5,700 and 6,900 CSU student-occupied households that fall into the category of household income below $25,000. Packet Pg. 24 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 2660.docx Recommendations Based on the analysis of economic, demographic, and housing market trends and conditions, as well as input and guidance from stakeholders involved since the HAPS project inception, EPS has tailored the following sets of recommendations for the City of Fort Collins to address housing needs and problems. Cost Reduction Options There are actions that the City can take to influence several aspects of overall ownership housing costs. While much of the discussion that follows concern the development of ownership housing, the recommendations have the potential to positively affect development costs of rental housing as well. A considerable effort was made to identify the extent to which these costs have changed over time, and discussions among stakeholders were lively and engaged on multiple levels of the implications of these findings. EPS’s analysis of affordability in this study incorporated not only an examination of affordability and housing price trends in Fort Collins and the surrounding communities, but also an examination of the components of the cost of housing in Fort Collins. Figure 1 depicts a combination of multiple data sources to illustrate the trends in a few of the largest overall cost components of housing – land, hard cost, and soft costs, including architecture and engineering, contractors, a floating amount for developer fee and profit, as well as city and county fees and taxes. By far, the largest components of housing costs fall outside of the City’s ability to control. Hard costs, such as labor and materials, account for 50 to 55 percent of total costs, but cannot be influenced by any policy solution of the City. Soft costs, which account for another 11 to 18 percent of total costs, such as architecture and engineering, general contractor fees, legal, insurance, and even developer fee, are also costs that the City cannot control directly. Land costs, which currently account for 25 percent of the overall cost of housing, while a significant component of the escalation in overall housing costs over the last 13 years, are also not directly in the City’s control. City fees and taxes, however, which account for 9 percent of overall housing costs, can be controlled directly by the City. 1) Marginal City Fee Structures Problem The marginal fee structure of the City’s fees discourage the construction of smaller, i.e. more affordable, units. Background The examination of overall costs associated with fees and taxes showed that this category of cost rose an estimated $7,500 over the time period analyzed. During this time, updates to the structure of the permit and plan check fees were made, as were updates to specific calculation of utility capital expansion fees. As noted by multiple stakeholders, the structure of the city’s fees and building code incentivizes the construction of larger units, because many are charged on a per-unit basis rather than a per square-foot basis. Packet Pg. 25 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 2660.docx Recommendation EPS recommends that the City re-examine the equitability of its fee structures and convert to a per square-foot basis where feasible and appropriate3 . As such, an equitable per square-foot fee would not disincentivize the construction of smaller and thus more affordable units. Figure 1 Trends in Housing Cost Components, 2000-2013 2) Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing Problem As illustrated above in Figure 1, City fees and taxes account for an estimated 9 percent of the cost of building a home. The impact of these fees on affordable housing is a disincentive to the construction of inventory without a waiver. 3 EPS recognizes that the permit and plan check fees were recently updated as of January 1, 2012 based on a cost-recovery analysis. It is also recognized that the City is in the process of updating its capital expansion fees, changes which have not affected the analysis of cost components in this study, however. Furthermore, EPS recognizes that the recommendation to re-examine the per square-foot basis of the capital expansion fees would require a legal nexus study to justify either differential fees based on the size of the unit, or a different analysis to establish the connection between capital facilities impacts and the size of a unit in terms of square feet. $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Housing Costs by Component City Fees & Taxes [Note 4] Other Soft Costs & Profit (Floating Amount) [Note 3] Hard Costs [Note 2] Land [Note 1] Source: City of Fort Collins; Larimer County Assessor; Elevations Real Estate; Economic & Planning Systems [Note 1]: Land dvalues are based on data compiled from the Larimer County Assessor's office. They represent the cost of a finished lot including infrastructure and water (as a portion of total housing sales prices). They accurately represent the portion (i.e. percentage) of land to housing sales price, but presented here, they have been calibrated down to fit the housing price data available. Actual lot sales prices, as with new unit sals prices are higher than depicted by these numbers. [Note 2]: This includes the cost of materials and labor. [Note 3]: This includes other soft costs, such as architeture and engineering, legal, and insurance. Developer profit is estimated as a floating amount, i.e. the difference between the other three components and the overall housing price data points. [Note 4]: These fees and taxes were estimated with the assistance of City of Fort Collins staff, including Development Review Services, Engineering, and the Building Department. [Note 5]: These totals represent the average of new and existing home sales throughout Fort Collins. They also represent detached (i.e. single-family) and attached (i.e. condominiums, townhomes, duplexes) housing and do not include rental. [Note 6]: This component analysis and trends were created for the purposes of discussing various cost components using best available data. Given the limitations and availability of new sales data trends, overall trends were used. As a result, the depicted overall costs will be noticeably lower than actual "costs to build". That is, these trends do not depict precise costs to build in Fort Packet Pg. 26 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 2660.docx Background The City has had an affordable housing incentives policy with regard to the development of units by the Fort Collins Housing Authority on its books since 1988, but the policy has been modified several times since then to expand the scope of fees for which a project could receive a waiver. Most recently, however, the ordinance was revisited and modified to apply only to projects that provided housing for households earning less than 30 percent AMI and subject to City Council approval. One of the issues (according to Agenda Item Summary 13 dated March 5, 2013) was a concern over the City’s ability to back fill these fee waivers with General Fund dollars. Recommendation While the City should not over-commit General Fund resources, EPS recommends the City (in combination with the evaluation of alternative funding sources) should re-examine its ability to fund fee waivers for affordable housing projects. And as it currently applies only to projects of the FCHA that provide units below 30 percent AMI, EPS also recommends that the City reevaluate its definition of applicable affordable housing to include a spectrum of AMI levels more commensurate with standard affordable housing definitions and to consider eligibility criteria for non-Housing Authority developers. Regulatory 3) Incentive Policies The City should consider two types of incentives policies – one that is zoning or land use based, and another that applies when public financing incentives are given. Problem Currently City incentive policy failed to encourage the development of affordable housing inventory. Background One of the most commonly used tools used to encourage market driven production of affordable housing is a zoning-based incentive. That is, builders who commit to deed restricting X percent of their units at Y percent AMI for at least Z years receive a zoning benefit that allows them to build more units, or more efficiently build them, or to get approvals faster than those builders who do not make similar commitments. While a variety of zoning incentives can be offered, the most common ones are (a) additional building density, (b) additional building height, (c) additional lot coverage (less on-site open space), and (d) reduced on-site parking requirements. In theory, the additional revenue generated by being able to build more units on a given piece of property compensates the developer for the lower average per unit sales price they achieve when the sales prices for the affordable units are added in. In practice, that means the incentives generally need to be substantial, not simply token amounts (10 percent density incentives are sometimes criticized as tokens that will not change a builder’s pro forma enough to warrant incorporation of affordable units, while 25 to 30 percent incentives are sometimes considered large enough to achieve that result). While it is tempting to draft incentive provisions that are discretionary (i.e. requiring a showing or hearing before some body that awards the incentive), it is much more effective to make the incentives a part of code, so that builders know they will not need to go to the time, expense, and potential NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) battle, that a discretionary process involves. Packet Pg. 27 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 2660.docx Another structure that could be pursued is an incentive policy ordinance that provides a set of guidelines whereby a development receiving public financing, e.g. in the form of tax-increment financing, would provide affordable housing in return. Recognizing that such an incentive policy structure could require the completion of a nexus study4 and/or the identification of the magnitude of affordable housing need generated by a project, this option would be intended to apply to large-scale projects receiving public financing. It would not apply to developments already providing affordable housing that may be receiving public assistance, such as development fee waivers, for example, and would also exempt other affordable projects or developments that are meeting community objectives, such as housing. In practice, developments that receive a negotiated amount of public financing in an incentive package would likely negotiate for a higher public financing amount to compensate for the additional requirement. But since the source of public financing is typically related to a share-back of sales tax revenues to the development, this incentive policy structure could ensure that a portion of the benefit is returned to the City in the form of affordable housing infrastructure. Recommendation EPS recommends that the City pursue a policy that requires developments to provide affordable units or contribute to an affordable housing fund in exchange for the relaxation of development standards with economic value, such as height restrictions, density bonuses5 , or even a truly streamlined development review process. EPS also recommends that the City pursue a policy that requires a developer receiving public financing to provide affordable housing or contribute to an affordable housing fund. 4 A nexus study provides a quantitative basis for the establishment of an affordable housing requirement, such as a housing fee, that links the magnitude of the per square-foot fee to the estimated housing demand generated by each increment of land use in a development. These studies provide the legal basis for the establishment of a housing fee and a quantitative relationship between the fee and the scale of the development in the event. 5 Bonus densities are one of the more common development incentives used to encourage the construction of affordable housing units in urban and non-urban environments with regulatory or incentive housing policies. In stakeholder workshops and through discussion with City staff, however, it was determined that bonus densities, which are commonly the most valuable incentive economically to a development, would not be relevant to the Fort Collins market. They would also not be applicable in the historic districts. Packet Pg. 28 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 2660.docx 4) Modifications to 3-Unrelated Rule Problem The rental vacancy rate is extremely low and, according to the gap analysis, there is a need for more affordable rental housing inventory within the City. Rental housing is the City’s most significant problem, but not an alarming one. Background This highly controversial issue surfaced during discussions of rental housing needs where it was noted as a possible solution to solving or relieving some of the pressure on the existing rental inventory. The issue also surfaced during discussions of the housing needs of distressed populations, such as the elderly, but with regard to ownership housing, not rental housing. According to City Neighborhood Services staff, areas throughout the City already allow Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (EORH)6 , but through a disclosure process7 . In 2010, City Council decided against expanding the allowance of EORHs into two additional zones, which at the time were designated Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density8 . Research shows that policies such as these throughout the U.S. vary widely and do not provide any clear direction for the City of Fort Collins. A survey of communities throughout the U.S. shows that there seems to be no correlation between the size of a city and whether it allows three or four (or more) unrelated persons per rental unit9 . There are two communities, coincidentally in Colorado – Denver and Boulder, where three unrelated persons are the maximum allowable in single-family or low-density zones and four unrelated persons are the maximum allowable in multi-family or high-density zones. Recommendation While EPS recognizes that a full-blown expansion of the 3-unrelated rule to a 4-unrelated rule reflects a previously dismissed policy option, there may be some opportunities for the City to evaluate the streamlining of its EORH exemption process, as well as its expansion to include exceptions for owner-occupied housing units. There may also be an opportunity to establish a landlord licensing and training program, similar to those practiced in other university towns with rental occupancy restrictions. Such a program provides neighborhoods and residents with more assurance that landlords, and ultimately the tenants, are aware of relevant city regulations, e.g. nuisance ordinances. It is important to note that CSU and the City are actively engaged in ongoing efforts to mitigate nuisance problems arising from college students10 renting units within residential neighborhoods. As such, efforts such as a streamlined exemption process for 6 A copy of this map can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/pdf/occupancy-zone-map.pdf 7 Currently, the owner of a property who intends to lease the property to more than three unrelated persons within a designated zone in the City needs to file an Occupancy Disclosure Form with the City. 8 According to Neighborhood Services, City staff initially supported the allowance of EORHs in these proposed NCM zones, but after the findings of public outreach revealed that 72 percent of the respondents to a mail survey indicated their disapproval of such a prospect, City staff recommended in memo to the City Manager dated September 9, 2010, that the designation of EORH in the NCM zone not be pursued. 9 A list was compiled on the website www.collegetownlife.com, but is no longer an active website. PDFs of the survey data still exist, which were summarized in the research in this report. 10 Party Registration is an effort between CSU and the City to provide students hosting parties with an opportunity to receive a warning, providing a 20-minute window to voluntarily terminate a party after a noise complaint is received. Packet Pg. 29 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 2660.docx EORHs and landlord licensing programs are likely to work complementarily with existing City/CSU efforts. 5) Affordable Housing Easement Problem Manufactured housing represents an important part of the City’s existing affordable housing inventory. Losing decent manufactured housing would be a loss to the inventory of affordable housing. Background Property owners sometimes voluntarily agree to preserve a historic building, or to preserve open space in return for a public benefit. The restrictions imposed on their land are generally documented through an easement or an agreement that is recorded in the property records, which notifies the public and any potential property buyers that the future use of the land is restricted in certain ways. An easement is an interest in real property (technically, the owner has sold the right to tear down the historic building or build on the open space), while an agreement is a contract (the owner has agreed not to tear it down or build on open space in return for the public benefit). Both tools can be used to achieve the same result, and to bind future owners of the property. The same approach can be used to encourage preservation of existing affordable housing – i.e. the owner records in the land records a document pledging to keep X percent of the housing affordable at Y percent AMI for Z years – provided that the city can offer the property owner something of benefit in return. In the case of historic buildings or open space there are federal and/or state tax incentives that apply once the easement or agreement has been recorded, but that is generally not true of affordable housing. While the easement or agreement will potentially reduce the value of the property (its potential highest and best use may no longer be available), which reduces the owner’s property taxes, that is generally not enough of an incentive. Since the owner is essentially agreeing to preserve an existing asset, zoning incentives for development or redevelopment generally do not have value. That leaves tax/fee/assessment rebates – in other words, it often requires the local government to forego revenue that it would otherwise have available to pursue other priorities. Recommendation EPS recommends the City pursue a policy that provides for an easement or an agreement that is recorded in property records, which effectively bind future owners of certain manufactured home parks to preserve existing uses. This recommendation could potentially also be more broadly applied as a tool to preserve other types of affordable housing. EPS also acknowledges that there may be a multitude of different more market-based solutions, policies, or strategic direction that the City can explore with regard to this housing need. Packet Pg. 30 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 2660.docx Alternative Funding Options Except for the re-examination of fee waivers for non-housing authority affordable housing projects, the preceding options can be implemented without the City making monetary commitments, i.e. without needing to raise funds. On the other hand, were the City to pursue incentivizing affordable housing development, such as the pursuit of stimulating housing development to address the magnitude of affordable housing needs described at the beginning of this chapter, a funding source would be needed. The following are three funding sources, i.e. taxes, used by other communities to address affordable housing goals, such as the acquisition of land for affordable housing development, subsidies to leverage private-sector development, the rehabilitation of existing units, or other development needs. While some of these funding sources are used by communities on a permanent basis, others institute these measures on a time-limited basis, funding discrete projects and goals over a short period of time, such as three to five years. 6) Excise Tax Problem The City has no dedicated or permanent funding source for affordable housing. Background The excise tax is a tax on construction materials for all new development. Boulder’s excise tax, for example is $160 per 1,000 square feet of residential development and $340 per 1,000 square feet of commercial development. The excise tax is a preferable option by comparison to a linkage fee, because it does not require a complicated nexus study to establish its basis, and it does not require that funds collected be allocated to a specified set of improvements. It does, however, require voter approval. Recommendation As one possible option to explore, EPS recommends a modest form of this tax because it will more broadly distribute the burden of providing an alternative funding source for affordable housing. 7) Dedicated Sales Tax Problem The City has no dedicated or permanent funding source for affordable housing. Background The most broadly-based funding source is the sales tax. A number of communities have imposed a dedicated sales tax collected to fund affordable housing construction and programs, but many communities adopt this mechanism in a time-limited format. In 2013, Fort Collins collected more than $92 million in sales tax revenue based on an estimated $2.5 billion in total taxable sales. As an example of how much revenue could be raised under this alternative, at a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 2660.docx similar level of taxable sales as 2013, a dedicated sales tax of ¼ cent in the City could generate approximately $6 million in funds for affordable housing goals11 . Recommendation Given the potential for strong resistance to an additional tax, EPS recommends that the City consider pursuing this option as a long-term strategy, but recognize its strength and potential to generate robust funds that could be used to support, subsidize, or leverage private-sector investment and development. EPS also recommends that the City consider this option only on a time-limited basis. 8) Dedicated Property Tax Problem The City has no dedicated or permanent funding source for affordable housing. Background The third taxing option EPS recommends the City explore is a dedicated and time-limited property tax mill. As of 2013, there was approximately $4.2 billion in total property valuation in Larimer County. To generate a similar $6 million in one year, a property tax mill of 1.400 could be adopted. Alternatively, to generate this amount over three years would require the adoption of a 0.47 mill property tax. Recommendation As with the pursuit of a dedicated and time-limited sales tax, EPS recommends that the City pursue a time-limited property tax dedicated to housing as a component of a longer-term funding strategy. Because this option is also anticipated to face community opposition, particularly from the business community, EPS recommends that a very small mill levy of 1 mill or less, as used in the example, be pursued because the burden of a property tax mill falls more heavily on non-residential assessed valuation than residential assessed valuation, based on the stipulations of the Gallagher Amendment. 9) 501(c)(3) Structure EPS also recommends exploring the potential to convert its existing Land Bank into a Community Land Trust12 model or a Community/Housing Foundation. This option would not generate 11 EPS has used the smallest common increment of a sales tax (¼ cent) to estimate the potential revenues from a time-limited dedicated sales tax. The $6 million figure is not necessarily representative of a determined amount according to an estimation of need, but a benchmark for comparison against what amount of mill levy would be necessary to assess to generate the same amount in property tax revenues. 12 A community land trust (CLT) is a non-profit corporation that provides permanently affordable housing units by acquiring land and removing it from the speculative for-profit real estate market. CLTs hold the land the own “in trust” forever for the benefit of the community by ensuring that is will always remain affordable for homebuyers. CLTs were enabled under Section 213 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. There are currently over 250 CLTs in the US including the Lowry Community Land Trust in Denver and the Thistle Community Land Trust in Boulder. A CLT typically acquires land for affordable housing in its designated community. The land is transferred to a developer and ultimately a homeowner under a long term land lease. The CLT generally leases the land to a qualified homeowner at a reduced rate to subsidize the housing unit price. The CLT retains the option to repurchase the housing unit upon sale and the resale price is set by formula to give the homeowner a fair return on its investment but also to maintain affordability for future homeowners. One of the major differences between a land bank and CLT is that a land bank is merely established to purchase and sell land, whereas a CLT is set up to hold land in a long-term lease structure to provide and ensure long-term affordability. Packet Pg. 32 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 2660.docx funding, but could be used as a vehicle for preserving housing affordability by better facilitating the development of land currently owned by the City. Legislative Options 10) Work with Elected Officials to Remedy the Threat of Construction Defect Claims Problem The threat of construction defects claims lawsuits negatively affects the for-sale multi-family housing construction market. Background Solving problems stemming from the threat of construction defects claims falls outside a local policy decision and into the realm of a state-level concern. During the Colorado General Assembly’s last session, which ended on May 7th, a handful of bills had been crafted to deal with some of the City’s issues. While final approval from the Governor remains on HB 1017, which provided for a state level affordable housing funding source, SB 220, which would have provided arbitration as a means to resolving construction defects claims, did not advance in this session. Recommendation EPS encourages the City of Fort Collins to engage its elected officials and state representatives in the pursuit of a remedy to the issues surrounding construction defects claims in particular during the next legislative session. Not Recommended The following affordable housing policy options are not recommended at this time. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO), as it applies to either ownership or rental housing, is not recommended for the following reasons:  An IHO directed at Fort Collins’ greatest housing need, i.e. rental housing, would face legal and logistical challenges13 ;  IHOs are effective where the supply of housing product affordable to low AMI levels is scarce;  IHOs are effective in markets saturated by high-end home sales, such as resort markets;  IHOs are inefficient tools when the price range of deed-restricted units is partially or completely overlapped by the presence of existing or new home sales prices elsewhere in the 13 The City of Boulder is the only urban municipality in Colorado to have an IHO for rental housing development. Because of the limitations on rent control identified by the case Lot 34 Ventures v. Telluride more than a decade ago, a municipality may not legally require a developer to provide rental units at a prescribed rent level. Only through a legal and administrative process that has to date not been legally challenged, and through the provisions of HB 1017, which clarified that municipalities may enter into a voluntary agreement regarding rents on private properties, the City of Boulder maintains its requirement that projects of more than 4 units must provide 10 percent affordable rental units. The City Attorney’s office also stipulates other requirements which must be met by a developer of affordable rental product, such as that the affordable rental inventory must be owned and operated by a housing authority or similar entity. In EPS’s work with the City of Boulder on this issue, it became apparent that, although developers were attempting to provide for the units on site, logistical, legal, and even lending issues arose such that made meeting all the requirements extremely difficult. Packet Pg. 33 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 2660.docx competitive market area, which in the case of Fort Collins, extends to the surrounding towns, as shown in Figure 2.14 Figure 2 Affordability Gaps in Fort Collins and Surrounding Communities, 2013 Figure 3 depicts 99 percent of existing and new home sales in Fort Collins during 201315 . Illustrated in this graphic are more than 3,500 home sales, approximately 22 percent (more than 770) of which fell below $190,600, or affordable to households earning 100 percent of the Area Median Income ($53,400). Also shown are the typical price ranges for units that would be sold as deed-restricted (i.e. income-restricted) under a regulatory structure such as an inclusionary housing ordinance. The blue shaded area demarks the range of housing affordability typically targeted by an IHO for affordable housing – 80% to 100% AMI, or housing priced between $152,000 and $190,000. One of the problems this would create in Fort Collins would be that deed-restricted housing created by an IHO would compete directly with market-rate housing. Faced with the choice between free market and deed-restricted housing, a household inevitably chooses a free-market unit to benefit from the possibility of unrestricted housing value appreciation, whereas deed- restricted units have value appreciation limits. 14 Figure 2 illustrates the similarity of median housing sales prices in surrounding communities. While the main intent of this graphic is to illustrates that there are affordability gaps in several of the surrounding communities with respect to median household incomes, it also illustrates that because there are communities with more affordable housing, an IHO creating deed- restricted units in the market would: a) further encourage household choices to buy homes elsewhere in the trade area, and b) not be effective for reasons stated in the following discussion of price bands. 15 Sales of housing above $800,000 are excluded for simplicity of this illustration. $190,600 $261,900 $151,800 $273,500 $207,300 $200,800 $385,800 $256,700 $303,400 $54,400 $8,000 $15,575 $42,850 $18,200 $245,000 $269,900 $167,375 $232,513 $250,150 $219,000 $363,671 $215,600 $297,904 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 Fort Collins Berthoud Greeley Johnstown Longmont Loveland Timnath Wellington Windsor Affordable Price Gap Median Sales Price Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems Packet Pg. 34 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 2660.docx Another problem is that the cost to build a home, specifically lot values, in Fort Collins is too high. That is, without subsidy, housing cannot be built for less than $200,000. As a result, the gap between the cost to construct units and what they are required to sell for is often passed on to the market rate units built in the remainder of the project. This problem, however, would not be unique to Fort Collins. As a point of reference, Denver’s IHO is tailored to require residential developments to provide units at 80% or 95% of AMI, depending on type of construction. In Denver, not only is there a considerably greater gap in the availability of housing affordable to these household income categories, but the ordinance has faced considerable opposition from the development and building community since its inception more than 10 years ago. The alternative to an IHO targeted toward 80% to 100% AMI would be an IHO tailored to address 60% AMI. At this range, there is less competitive market inventory (approximately 7 percent of existing home sales were affordable between 60% and 80% AMI). At this level, however, the gap between the cost of construction and the target sales price is exacerbated, decreasing its practical effectiveness. The green shaded area indicates a common range of housing affordability typically targeted by an IHO tailored to address workforce housing needs – 100% to 120% AMI, or housing priced between $190,000 and $229,000. In Fort Collins, 20 percent of sales in 2013 fell between these AMI levels. Some communities, e.g. Davis, CA, have adopted IHOs that address their workforce housing needs. Again, this tool is most effective in markets where housing product in this range either is not being built or exists in scarce quantities in the supply. Figure 3 Spectrum of Existing and New Sales (2013) Against Deed-Restricted Housing $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 19% 60% 68% 76% 83% 89% 93% 97% 102% 105% 108% 112% 114% 117% 119% 121% 124% 127% 130% 134% 136% 140% 145% 150% 155% Fort Collins Housing Study - Draft Recommendations May 21, 2014 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 2660.docx Commercial Linkage Commercial linkage fees are a form of impact fee assessed on new commercial developments or major employers based on mitigating the need for workforce housing generated by the new or expanding commercial business or development providing commercial space for new business. Because they are basically an impact fee, linkage fees require a nexus study to establish the basis for the fee16 . EPS does not recommend a community-wide commercial linkage program for the following reasons:  Commercial linkage programs are more appropriate in markets without as much competition for sales tax revenues;  Linkage programs generally face opposition from the commercial development industry, because most of the burden is placed on non-residential development;  The Fort Collins market competes with surrounding municipalities for sales tax revenues, and the establishment of a linkage fee could potentially discourage development. It should be noted that this recommendation not to pursue a community-wide commercial linkage program differs from EPS’s recommendation to pursue an incentive policy ordinance that incorporates one of the mechanism of a nexus study that would be used as a part of the linkage program establishment. The major distinction is that EPS’s recommendation for an incentive policy ordinance applies only to developments where public financing is involved and not all developments. 16 This is the same type of nexus study as may be required to establish a basis for fees identified under the incentive policy ordinance option #3. The point of difference is that a full commercial linkage program would be assessed community-wide and not conditionally, as recommended. Packet Pg. 36 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) 4.25.14 Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Packet Pg. 37 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Socially Sustainable Housing Market A Housing Market Characterized by Equity and Diversity – Provides Opportunities For All Residents – Offers Housing Options for a Diverse Set of Incomes, Preferences and Life Stages Common Barriers – Market Failures in Terms of Affordablility, Accessibility and Special Needs Housing Resources Packet Pg. 38 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 3 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Questions for Council Consideration 1. Do you think we have identified all the best options? 2. Which of these options would best support a socially sustainable housing market for Fort Collins? ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 4 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 5 Interdepartmental City Team Economic & Policy Systems, lead consultants Three Stakeholder Workshops Two Public Open Houses (May) Board Involvement • Affordable Housing Board (Advisory) • Senior Advisory Board • Planning and Zoning Work Session • Council Finance Committee • Economic Advisory Commission City Council Work Session The Process Packet Pg. 41 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 6 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 7 Stakeholder Workshops 1. Best Practices § Identified affordable housing tools, funding sources, comparable cities 2. What is the Need? § Defined, reviewed data and questions, identify and discuss trends 3. Options § Discuss policy and direction Packet Pg. 43 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 8 Ownership Housing & Commuting Patterns § Sales Prices consistently increasing § In-commuting up / out-commuting flat Rental & Student Housing § Rents increasing every year since 2000 § Consistently low vacancy rates Housing Cost Components § Land values, hard costs, City/County fees and taxes increased § Soft Costs and profit decreased Distressed Populations Four Major Topic Areas Packet Pg. 44 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 9 Sources: City of Fort Collins, Larimer County Assessor, Elevations Real Estate, Economic & Planning Systems $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Housing Costs by Component City Fees & Taxes Other Soft Costs + Profit Hard Costs Land Source: City of Fort Collins; Larimer County Assessor; Elevations Real Estate; Economic & Planning Systems 25% 55% 11% 9% As % of Total Escalation in Costs: City Fees & Taxes = 9% • ($7,500) Other Soft Costs + Profit = -6% • ($4,800) Hard Costs = 60% • ($50,200) Land = 37% • ($30,620) 20% 53% 18% 9% 2000-2013: Average Sales Price = 42% • ($83,500) Profit margins squeezed? Housing Cost Components Packet Pg. 45 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 10 Escalation in Costs—Average Sales Price Increase 2000-2013: 42% = $83,500 Cost Components Percentage Increase/Decrease Direction Dollar Amount City Fees & Taxes 9% • $7,500 Soft Costs & Profit -6% • -$4,800 Hard Costs 60% • $50,200 Land 37% • $30,620 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 11 Who are they? § Cost-burdened Households § Fixed income folks: Disabled, Seniors § In-poverty: Homeless, Household income of $25,000 or less § First-time Homebuyers § Mobile Home Park Residents Issues Identified for both Ownership and Rental Homes Distressed Populations Packet Pg. 47 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Preliminary Options Consultants § Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. § Clarion & Associates Denver, Colorado ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 12 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) LEGISLATIVE: Lobby State Legislature Legislative Options Packet Pg. 49 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Cost Reduction Options COST REDUCTION: Waivers, fees, minimum size ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 14 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Regulatory Options REGULATORY: Relax the 3-Unrelated Rule REGULATORY: Incentive Policy Ordinance REGULATORY: Evaluate Land Constraints REGULATORY: Address Manufactured Housing ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 15 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Alternative Funding Source Options ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES: New Tax ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES: Land Bank Program ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 16 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 17 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 18 Remember why we Need affordable housing Packet Pg. 54 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Questions for Council Consideration 1. Do you think we have identified all the best options? 2. Which of these options would best support a socially sustainable housing market for Fort Collins? ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 19 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 20 For more information: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist 970-221-6753 l sbeckferkiss@fcgov.com fcgov.com/socialsustainability Packet Pg. 56 Attachment2.4: Powerpoint presentation (Housing Affordability Policy Study) DATE: 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. Packet Pg. 57 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. Packet Pg. 58 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. Packet Pg. 59 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) Packet Pg. 60 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 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment3.1: TOD Projects Parking Analysis (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) Parking Impact Study Guidelines May 5, 2014 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment3.2: Parking Impact Study Guidelines - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment3.2: Parking Impact Study Guidelines - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 64 Attachment3.2: Parking Impact Study Guidelines - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 65 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study)  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. Packet Pg. 66 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 74 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 5 Executive Summary To be completed when recommendations are finalized. Packet Pg. 75 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 76 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 77 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 78 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 80 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 81 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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). Packet Pg. 82 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 84 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 85 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 87 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 88 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 89 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 90 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 91 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 92 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 93 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 95 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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: Packet Pg. 99 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 100 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 101 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 102 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 103 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 104 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 105 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 106 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 37 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 111 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 114 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 115 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 117 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 118 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 120 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 123 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 126 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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% Packet Pg. 127 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 60 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 61 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 62 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 63 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 64 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 65 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 66 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 138 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 140 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 141 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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). Packet Pg. 142 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 147 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 148 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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: Packet Pg. 149 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 150 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 151 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 85 APPENDICES (Available upon request) Packet Pg. 155 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) May 27, 2014 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) PROCESS OVERVIEW ' Consultant ' City policies ' Best practices and literature review ' Community engagement ' Data collection ' TBL & other considerations ' Alternatives and Recommendations Packet Pg. 159 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) THANK YOU! Packet Pg. 166 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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? Packet Pg. 167 Attachment3.5: Staff Presentation (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) DATE: STAFF: May 27, 2014 Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Mgr Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION 7th Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Timnath and the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide planned and orderly development of urban services along the I-25 Corridor and to establish appropriate Growth Management and Influence Areas to support such development. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) modifications proposed by Timnath? 2. What feedback does Council have regarding the GMA modifications proposed by Fort Collins? 3. Does the Council support evaluating joint planning, revenue, and cost-sharing areas? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On February 17, 2009, Timnath and Fort Collins entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) related to annexation, Growth Management Areas (GMA) and land development issues. This IGA resolved differences that had arisen between the parties related to which areas the City of Fort Collins should provide urban level services, and to which areas Timnath should provide such services (Attachment #1). Timnath and Fort Collins generally agreed that, with some exceptions, I-25 would serve as the boundary separating the two communities. During these negotiations a GMA for the two communities (Attachment #2) was developed. Timnath requested that Fort Collins consider further amendments to the GMA approved in 2009. Fort Collins requested that Timnath further consider amendments to the GMA and agree to consider joint planning and revenue sharing for three proposed areas of influence. In addition, since the Timnath Agreement was approved options were explored to resolve conflicts that arose with a previously approved IGA with Larimer County. Those conflicts involved subdivisions that were agreed to be part of the Fort Collins GMA with Larimer County and were then moved to the Timnath GMA. This proposed amendment would resolve those areas of conflict by returning those subdivisions to the Fort Collins GMA. ISSUES: Modifications proposed by Timnath: 1. Adding a two mile section north of County Road 52 between I-25 and County Road 5 into the GMA adopted 2009 agreement. The area added is not currently in the Fort Collins GMA as approved by Larimer County, nor was it included in the discussions with Timnath in 2009. From Timnath’s perspective, including this area is consistent with the 2009 general intention of Timnath’s GMA being east of I-25. Packet Pg. 168 May 27, 2014 Page 2 2. Timnath also requested the consideration of de-annexing a Poudre School District (PSD) parcel that currently resides in the Fort Collins GMA since any educational use of the property is likely to serve the Town of Timnath rather than the City of Fort Collins. By authorizing the proposed seventh amendment, Fort Collins agrees that if PSD is to construct educational facilities to serve the Timnath community the area should be in the Timnath GMA. If the property owner (PSD) requests de-annexation, the amendment provides that the City of Fort Collins will consider it. If, in the future, the property is used for commercial purposes revenues will be shared. 3. Timnath also requested a minor boundary change within the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way. The location of this request is on the west side of the east access road along I-25, starting south of Prospect Road and ending at the Timnath Town limits. The revised GMA boundary would be on the west side of the access road. This ensures that Timnath is able to annex properties within their GMA in an orderly fashion east of I-25. If all suggested changes are approved the new Fort Collins - Timnath GMA would be as depicted in Attachment #3. Modifications proposed by Fort Collins: 1. Return the following subdivisions back to the Fort Collins GMA as required by the Larimer County IGA and at the request of the County, until appropriate public engagement can occur. When Timnath and Fort Collins entered into an IGA in 2009, Fort Collins had previously agreed to a GMA with Larimer County (Attachment 4 & Attachment 5). The County required subdivisions within the Fort Collins GMA to agree to annex into Fort Collins at a later date. Five subdivisions were built to Fort Collins development standards and subsequently signed pre-annexation agreements for inclusion into the City of Fort Collins. During the 2009 negotiations with Timnath, those subdivisions were subsequently moved into the Town of Timnath GMA. Those subdivisions are:  Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park  Vista Bonita Subdivision  Vista Grande Subdivision  Clydesdale Park Subdivision  Sunflower Subdivision This proposed change resolves the conflict created between the Timnath IGA and the Larimer County IGA. 2. If approved, staff recommends that Fort Collins agrees to participate in a public engagement process with Timnath and Larimer County to seek input from property owners in Cloverleaf and Vista Bonita to determine whether those property owners would rather be served by the Town of Timnath. In the event that Vista Bonita and Cloverleaf petition to locate in Timnath, Fort Collins would request removal of those subdivisions from the Larimer County-Fort Collins GMA. Clydesdale Park Subdivision has petitioned for annexation into the City of Fort Collins and desires to remain part of Fort Collins as originally planned. 3. Adoption of this amendment would also permit staff to further amend the GMA adopted with Larimer County by removing all non-developed areas that are currently in the Fort Collins-Larimer County GMA but have been requested and agreed to be placed in the Timnath GMA (Attachment 6). This ensures boundaries of the Fort Collins GMA described in the Timnath and Larimer County IGA are the same. 4. In the event that Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park petitions for annexation into Timnath, Fort Collins requests that Timnath allow for a 40’ strip of land west of Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park be made available for inclusion into the Fort Collins GMA for enclave purposes. This request would provide an alternative method for closing the enclave needed for annexing the East Mulberry Corridor. Packet Pg. 169 May 27, 2014 Page 3 5. Based upon the successful shared planning and development of I-25 and Highway 392, with the Town of Windsor, Fort Collins suggested a similar process be explored with the Town of Timnath. Fort Collins proposed three areas of influence be evaluated: I-25 and Prospect, I-25 and Mountain Vista, and potentially I-25 and Mulberry. The Mulberry area may be needed in the event that property owners at Cloverleaf and Vista Bonita petition to be in the Timnath GMA (Attachment 7). ATTACHMENTS 1. IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (PDF) 2. 2009 GMA Timnath - Fort Collins (PDF) 3. Proposed 2014 GMA Timnath - Fort Collins (PDF) 4. IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (PDF) 5. GMA - Larimer County - Fort Collins (PDF) 6. Larimer County Removal of Lands GMA (PDF) 7. Fort Collins-Timnath 2014 GMA-Influence Areas (PDF) 8. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX) Packet Pg. 170 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 172 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 173 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 174 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 175 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 176 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 177 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 178 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 179 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 180 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 181 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 182 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 183 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 184 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 185 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 186 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 187 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 188 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 189 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 190 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 191 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 192 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 193 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 194 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 195 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 196 Attachment4.1: IGA - Fort Collins - Timnath (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Fort Collins / Timnath GMA Boundaries Approved 2009 Aachment #2 Exhibit F Last Revised: 03/27/2014 N Fort Collins City Limits Timnath City Limits Fort Collins / Timnath GMA Boundary Northern Timnath GMA Boundary Packet Pg. 197 Attachment4.2: 2009 GMA Timnath - Fort Collins (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Fort Collins / Timnath GMA Boundaries 2014 Exhibit F-1 N Timnath Town Limits Timnath GMA Prior to 2009 Amendment 2014 Proposed GMA Boundary GMA Modificaons Agreed to in 1st IGA; Agree to remove from Fort Collins / Larimer County GMA & go to Timnath GMA 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 5 3 4 Add Cobb Lake Area to Timnath GMA Remove Cloverleaf, Vista Bonita, Sunflower, Clydesdale Park & Vista Grande from Timnath GMA and place in Fort Collins GMA with condions Permit a request for de-annexaon by PSD; from Fort Collins GMA into Timnath GMA Add into Timnath GMA Add into Timnath GMA- GMA located on the eastside of I-25, inclusive of the Frontage Road Last Revised: 04/14/2014 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment4.3: Proposed 2014 GMA Timnath - Fort Collins (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 199 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 200 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 201 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 202 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 203 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 204 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 205 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 206 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 207 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 208 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 209 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 210 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 211 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 212 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 213 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 214 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 215 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 216 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 217 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 218 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 219 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 220 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 221 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 222 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 223 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 224 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 225 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 226 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 227 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 228 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 229 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 230 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Packet Pg. 231 Attachment4.4: IGA - Fort Collins - Larimer County (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Aachment #5 Last Revised: 03/27/2014 Packet Pg. 232 Attachment4.5: GMA - Larimer County - Fort Collins (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) Aachment #6 Exhibit G Last Revised: 03/27/2014 Proposed Removal of Lands from GMA Areas to be Removed from Fort Collins / Larimer County Growth Management Area 1 1 Areas east of I-25 & south of Prospect Road (hatching not depicted) + Fort Collins / Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement Growth Management Area Boundary Packet Pg. 233 Attachment4.6: Larimer County Removal of Lands GMA (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 2014 Timnath Proposal Addions or Subtracons from 2009 Agreement (Aachment #3 Plus Proposed Influence Areas) Last Revised: 03/27/2014 Aachment #10 N Timnath City Limits Timnath GMA Prior to 2009 Amendment Proposed Prospect Rd Influence Area (IA #1) Proposed Mtn. Vista Dr Influence Area (IA #2) Potenal Mulberry St Influence Area (IA #3) 2014 Proposed Timnath GMA Boundary GMA Addions Agreed to in 1st IGA Timnath (+) Fort Collins (-) Fort Collins (+) Fort Collins (-) Fort Collins (-) Packet Pg. 234 Attachment4.7: Fort Collins-Timnath 2014 GMA-Influence Areas (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 1 Seventh (7th ) Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Town of Timnath Karen Cumbo Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Laurie Kadrich Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Rick Richter Director, Infrastructure Services May 27, 2014 Work Session Packet Pg. 235 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 2 General Direction Sought • What feedback does Council have regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) modifications proposed by Timnath? • What feedback does Council have regarding the GMA modifications proposed by Fort Collins? • Does the Council support evaluating joint planning, revenue and cost-sharing areas? Packet Pg. 236 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 3 Why an Amendment?: • First Amendment expired, temporarily extended • Timnath has completed a comprehensive plan and requests some modifications to the 2009 plan • To resolve conflicts with the Larimer County IGA • To ensure an E. Mulberry Enclave option • To provide an opportunity for shared planning, infrastructure improvements and revenues for areas along the I-25 corridor by creating Influence Areas (IA) • Housekeeping changes Packet Pg. 237 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 4 Timnath & Fort Collins IGA: • February 17, 2009 • Established an agreed to Growth Management Area (GMA) • Inadvertently created a conflict with Larimer County IGA and the Fort Collins GMA • General agreement areas east of I-25 would be in the Timnath GMA with some exceptions Packet Pg. 238 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 5 Fort Collins – Timnath 2009 GMA Boundary Packet Pg. 239 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 6 7th Amendment Map • North Extension • 5 Subdivisions • 2 Proposed IAs • 1 Potential IA • PSD land • I-25 Access Rd. • 40’ Strip • Cloverleaf & Vista Bonita Packet Pg. 240 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 7 Five Subdivision Areas: 1. Clover leaf Mobile Home Park 2. Vista Bonita Subdivision 3. Vista Grande Subdivision 4. Clydesdale Park Subdivision 5. Sunflower Subdivision 1 2 3 4 5 Packet Pg. 241 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 8 Proposed Removal of Lands: • CSU Horticulture • State of Colorado • Agriculture, vacant or multiple owners • PSD • Multiple Activities; commercial, RV park, Nursery Packet Pg. 242 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 9 General Direction Sought • What feedback does Council have regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) modifications proposed by Timnath? • What feedback does Council have regarding the GMA modifications proposed by Fort Collins? • Does the Council support evaluating joint planning, revenue and cost-sharing areas? Packet Pg. 243 Attachment4.8: Powerpoint Presentation (7th Amendment to IGA with Timnath) 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% Packet Pg. 128 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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. Packet Pg. 119 Attachment3.4: TOD Parking Study - Draft (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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% Packet Pg. 70 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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% Packet Pg. 69 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 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 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment3.3: Draft TDM Checklist (Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study) 162% 168% 175% 184% 193% 202% 218% 237% 265% 312% Existing and New Home Sales Price Distribution, 2013 Distribution of Sales Affordable by Fort Collins Area Median Income Sales of Market-Rate Housing Available at 100% AMI or Below (22% of All Sales) Sales Price Range for Deed-Restricted AFFORDABLE Housing (at 80% to 100% AMI) Sales Price Range for Deed-Restricted WORKFORCE Housing (at 100% to 120% AMI) Packet Pg. 35 Attachment2.3: Policy Options Recommendations - May 21 2014 (Housing Affordability Policy Study) Packet Pg. 15 Attachment2.2: Triple Bottom Line Analysis (Housing Affordability Policy Study)