Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/18/2014 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 163, 2014, AMENDINAgenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 18, 2014 City Council STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2014, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Parking Issues Related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on November 4, 2014, by a vote of 4-3 (Nays: Cunniff, Overbeck, Poppaw) amends the Land Use Code to revise residential and commercial off-street parking requirements as recommended by the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study, also adopted on November 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the amended Ordinance on Second Reading. During First Reading Council initially made a motion to amend the AMI on page 4 of the staff report to 60%, however that motion was withdrawn in order to approve a Resolution. When the motion was made again, Council included changing the parking minimum column as well. This then moved the parking requirement reduction column to 60% instead of 50%. Since there was no discussion regarding that change, staff believes this was an inadvertent addition to the motion and recommends adoption on Second Reading without any adjustment to the parking requirement reduction column. In light of this, staff is requesting that the Council amend the Ordinance on Second Reading to restore to 50% the parking requirement reduction column for affordable housing projects. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, November 4, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 4, 2014 City Council STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and Revised TOD Off-Street Parking Requirements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2014-100 Approving the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2014, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Parking Issues Related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and corresponding revisions to residential and commercial off-street parking requirements within the Land Use Code (LUC). At its September 11, 2014 meeting, Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the following LUC revisions: Residential 1. Minimum parking requirements for multi-family and mixed-use dwellings; and 2. Alternative compliance. Commercial* 1. Minimum parking requirements for nonresidential land uses city-wide; and 2. Alternative compliance. *The commercial parking recommendation was qualified as a necessary interim measure until a comprehensive parking management approach is adopted. The management approach includes on-street paid parking and residential parking permit programs at the perimeter, public parking garages, and a transportation demand management (TDM) program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council Work Session – May 27, 2014 At the May 27 City Council Work Session, the following feedback was provided: ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 1. City Council generally supports the Study’s recommendations; 2. Two options for minimum parking requirements should be provided for multi-family dwellings: a. Retain temporary standards; or b. Adopt recommended standards; 3. Alternative compliance needs to demonstrate effective reductions in parking demand; 4. The City should pursue public-private partnerships for parking structures and off-site parking in the near- term; and 5. The effectiveness of MAX and parking conditions should be monitored in the long-term. TOD Parking Study Recommendations 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 off-street parking in the TOD Overlay Zone. The temporary minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard with an alternative compliance element that permits reduced parking if supported through a parking impact study. Staff and a consultant have conducted extensive public outreach and research on national best practices as part of the Study. The community has provided consistent feedback that, although the City’s vision for walkable and transit-oriented infill and redevelopment is commendable, and cars may not be needed for routine trips, residents still own cars and, therefore, vehicle storage and access needs to be accommodated. At the May 5 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the TOD Parking Study and accompanying Land Use Code (LUC) revisions, with the following key recommendations: 1. Provide minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use (Land Use Code); 2. Allow for alternative compliance based on parking demand mitigation strategies (Land Use Code); 3. Provide on-street paid parking in downtown, employing the newest management technology; 4. Develop public-private partnerships to construct parking structures; and 5. Continue monitoring parking conditions. The first two recommendations listed above are proposed to be implemented as revisions to the Land Use Code. (Discussion regarding residential and commercial land use recommendations are found on page three.) Recommendations three and four are policy direction for implementation which is outside the scope of the Parking Study. However, recommendation three, on-street paid parking, is already being considered for further outreach and implementation by Parking Services through a budget offer for 2015-16. Recommendation four, public-private partnerships for parking structures will be managed by the Economic Health Office to create the criteria necessary to implement such partnerships. In addition to the minimum parking requirements and alternative compliance provisions staff is recommending the following Land Use Code changes that will assist in getting right-sized parking:  Require a parking narrative as a submittal requirement in which an applicant will describe the parking demand generated by the proposal with consideration of the anticipated number of employees, tenants, and/or patrons; the amount and location of parking provided; where anticipated spill-over parking will occur; and, any other considerations regarding vehicle parking;  Revise the compatibility section of the Code to enable decision maker(s) to require an increased amount of parking;  Require that all parking demand mitigation strategies are recorded on the approved site plan so that the strategies can be enforced for the life of the project through zoning compliance; and  Create a definition of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) for the interim period of time prior to an adopted bona fide program so that a private proposal may utilize this strategy. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 3 Land Use Code Revisions – Residential in the TOD Overlay Zone Prior to the “stop-gap” ordinance, no minimum parking was required for mixed-use and multi-family residential in the TOD Overlay Zone. The chart below provides the existing (temporary – expires December 2014) and proposed parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family residential developments within the TOD Overlay Zone. Number of Bedrooms per Unit Temporary Requirements Proposed Requirements* One or less 1.1 0.75 Two 1.2 1 Three 1.4 1.25 Four and above 2.1 1.5 Rent-by-the-bedroom All bedrooms N/A 0.75 * Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure. Examples Development Units – Bedrooms Parking Provided Temporary Requirement Proposed Requirement Max Flats 64 – 98 64 Spaces 87 Spaces 74 Spaces Penny Flats 174 – 311 312 Spaces 210 Spaces 165 Spaces Pine Street Lofts 14 – 21 26 Spaces 16 Spaces 12 spaces Attachment 2 is an extensive analysis of multi-family developments within the TOD Overlay which compares the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms for 10 additional projects. Land Use Code Revisions – Commercial Citywide Currently, nonresidential land uses do not have minimum parking requirements and are limited to a maximum number of spaces. The proposed standards would create a minimum parking requirement of approximately 50% of the maximum permitted. Exemptions are proposed for existing buildings and reductions within the TOD Overlay Zone. The proposed requirements can be found in the attached ordinance. The following chart shows the amount of parking spaces required for commercial development under the proposed change. Examples: Development On-Site Parking Provided Off-Site Parking Provided Parking Required if Minimums Adopted Inside TOD Overlay Zone 401 N. Mason (Mason Street Sustainable Development) 0 11 22 Canyon Place (Otterbox) 0 310 for the Otterbox campus 60 Mitchell Block (Bohemian) 12 0 32 Meldrum Office Building (Blue Ocean Headquarters) 6 310 for the Otterbox campus 37 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 4 Block 1 (Encompass) 65 0 36 Outside TOD Overlay Zone Villagio 357 (maximum 401 spaces) 0 185 Custom Blending 48 (maximum + 3 handicap spaces) 0 30 Brinkman Headquarters 95 (maximum + 3 handicap spaces) 0 31 Land Use Code Revisions – Alternative Compliance The proposed alternative compliance option, for both commercial and residential land uses, provides flexible parking demand mitigation consistent with the vision for development within the TOD Overlay Zone. With future infill and redevelopment projects generally envisioned to be compact, transit and pedestrian friendly, with less area dedicated to surface parking lots, applicants have the ability to reduce the amount of parking provided when parking demand mitigation strategies are employed. The following chart shows demand mitigation strategies and the corresponding parking reduction. Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction*** Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit (< 50% AMI) 50% Transit Passes for each tenant 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Shared Parking Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Parking Impact Study Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Approved Alternative Compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and subject to audit for the duration of the project. *** Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. (Residential Only) The parking demand mitigation strategies (included in the above LUC revisions) have been shown effective in reducing the need for extensive on-site parking. The proposed reductions were based on information cited below. Affordable Housing – Families earning 24% - 36% area median income (AMI) have a 44% lower vehicle ownership rate. (Source: www.nonprofithousing.org) Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 5 Transit Passes – The table below illustrates the effects of providing transit passes: Location: Drive to Work Transit to Work Introduction of transit passes Before After Difference Before After Difference Santa Clara, CA 76% 60% -16% 11% 27% 16% Bellevue, WA 81% 57% -24% 13% 18% 6% Ann Arbor, MI N/A -4% -4% 20% 25% 5% Boulder, CO 56% 36% -20% 15% 34% 19% Average -16% 12% Source: Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, City of Pasadena, Nelson Nygaard Car Share – Studies have shown that carshare members reduce their car ownership. A study of City Carshare members found that 29% of members either sold vehicles or avoided planned vehicle purchases when they joined the program (Cervero et al., 2007). In a more recent national survey, carshare members reduced their vehicle ownership from an average of .47 autos per household before joining a carshare program to .24 vehicles after joining (Martin, Shaheen, & Lidicker, 2010). Notably, most of this ownership reduction was due to one-car households becoming zero-car households, with many fewer two-car households joining and reducing their auto ownership. Over half of carshare members were in zero-car households when they joined, and remained so. Still, enough households shed a vehicle after joining carshare or avoided purchasing a vehicle, that each carshare vehicle replaced 9 to 13 private vehicles. Bike and Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) A – The Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Walking and cycling improvements result in a typical parking reduction of 5 - 15%. (See table in Draft TOD Parking Study on page 26.) Parking Impact Study – This proposed provision permits a development proposal to provide a comprehensive study of parking conditions on and around their site in order to justify a lower or higher parking ratio than required. (See attached Parking Impact Study Guidelines.) BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The following boards were closely involved with the TOD Parking Study and were asked to formally recommend to approve the TOD Parking Study, adopt residential and commercial parking requirements, and alternative compliance. Topic and Recommendation Board Approve TOD Parking Study Adopt Residential Parking Requirements Adopt Commercial Parking Requirements Adopt Alternative Compliance Planning and Zoning Board YES YES YES YES Parking Advisory Board YES YES NO YES Transportation Board YES YES NO YES Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 6 Planning and Zoning Board At its May 5, 2014 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommended adoption of the TOD Parking Study. At the September 11 meeting, the Board made separate motions for residential and commercial requirements. The Board voted unanimously (6-0) to adopt the residential parking requirements and corresponding alternative compliance, and a split vote (5-1) to adopt the commercial parking requirements and corresponding alternative compliance. The vote to approve commercial parking requirements was qualified as a necessary interim measure until a comprehensive parking management approach, as seen in many peer communities, is adopted which includes on-street paid parking (Study recommendation) and residential parking permit programs at the perimeter (existing), public parking garages (Study recommendation), and a transportation demand management (TDM) program (Study recommendation). Parking Advisory Board At its May 12, 2014 meeting, the Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the TOD Parking Study. However, the Board expressed the following concerns: need to be sensitive to the impacts minimum parking requirements may have on affordable housing; investment in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is important; and on-street paid parking will require more public outreach before implementation. At its July 14 meeting, the Board voted to recommend minimum parking requirements for residential but voted against minimum parking requirements for commercial citing concerns that it may deter development and market conditions will provide for parking. Transportation Board At its July 16, 2014 meeting, the Board unanimously voted to recommend minimum parking requirements for residential but voted against minimum parking requirements for commercial citing concerns that it may deter development and market conditions will provide for parking. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has conducted outreach throughout the entirety of the study engaging targeted stakeholders, formal organizations, the public-at-large, and City Boards and Commissions. Primarily, the topic has been presented in face-to-face meetings and also online tools such as the City’s website, Facebook, Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter, Nextdoor, and an online survey. In general public comments indicate: o Spillover parking from CSU and new student housing is an issue; o the concept of less parking in the TOD Overlay may be sufficient in the long term but the transit is not yet running; o people may be able to perform routine trips via bikes, walking, and transit, but still own a car for longer trips; o parking requirements should be applied according to land use and site specific conditions; o on-street paid parking makes sense in the Downtown; and o parking structures are appropriate. (More detailed outreach information can be found in the Draft TOD Parking Study on page 54.) Community Engagement Strategy #1: Focus group presentations to key stakeholders o Groups Engaged  UniverCity Connections, Transit and Mobility Taskforce, January 7  Developers, January 22-23  Commercial property owners, January 22-23  Design community/planners, January 22-23  Board of Realtors, February 11, May 13, July 10 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 7  Overland Sertoma Club, February 19  Downtown Business Association, March 20  Downtown Development Authority, August 14  North Front Range MPO & Larimer County Mobility Council, April 17  Chamber of Commerce, April 18, August 1  CREW of Northern Colorado, June 4  South Fort Collins Business Association, October 7 Community Engagement Strategy #2: Engage City Boards and Commissions o Groups Engaged  Planning and Zoning Board, Mar. 7, April 4, May 8, July 10, September11  Parking Advisory Board, December 9, March 10, May 12, July 14  Transportation Board, March 19, July 16  Affordable Housing Board, April 3  Economic Advisory Commission, May 21  City Council Work Session, May 27 Community Engagement Strategy #3: General Public Involvement o Project Booth at Transportation Open House (February 20)  Attendees: 150+ o Online Presence & Social Media  Project Web page on City Web site  City Facebook page  Mason Corridor Connection E-newsletter  Development Review List Serve o 328 Subscribers  Nextdoor Web Posting o 4,174 total members o 3,330 households o Targeted Neighborhood Meetings  Downtown Neighborhoods, March 6  Midtown Neighborhoods, March 11  Campus Area/Avery Park Neighborhoods, March 27 o Tactic: Engage Media  Article in Coloradoan (March 5)  Neighborhood Services E-Newsletter ATTACHMENTS 1. Map - TOD Overlay Zone (PDF) 2. TOD Projects Parking Comparison (PDF) 3. Parking Impact Study Guidelines (PDF) 4. City Council Work Session Summary, May 27, 2014 (PDF) 5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study and Land Use Code Revisions City Council 2nd Reading - November 18, 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 2 Ordinance No. 163, 2014 (11-4-14) 3 Ordinance No. 163, 2014 (11-18-14) 4 THANK YOU! - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 163, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES RELATED TO THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) OVERLAY ZONE WHEREAS, the Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) Overlay Zone historically had no minimum parking requirements and, in 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “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; and WHEREAS, City staff was instructed to address this parking problem temporarily by the presentation to the City Council for adoption of Ordinance No. 121, 2013, which imposed certain minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone and which temporary parking ordinance, following its extension by Ordinance No. 107, 2014, expires in December 2014; and WHEREAS, City staff has now conducted extensive public outreach and research on potential solutions to the problem of parking spillover while supporting the City’s goal of encouraging walkable and transit-oriented infill and redevelopment recognizing that even in the TOD Overlay Zone there will be motor vehicles both in usage and in storage; and WHEREAS, the extensive public outreach, and presentation to the Board, the Board recommended that the Land Use Code be amended to establish minimum parking requirements that vary according to land use and to allow for alternative compliance solutions based upon a parking impact study, shared parking, or transportation demand management proposals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code are in the best interests of the City and should be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.2.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking . . . (D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles). . . . - 2 - (3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in a zone district predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such district. (a) Required off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or premises as the building or use for which they are required unless: 1. such spaces are provided collectively by two (2) or more buildings or uses on abutting lots in a single parking area located within the boundaries of those abutting lots, and the total number of parking spaces supplied collectively is equal to the number of spaces required by this subdivision for each use considered separately, or 2. an alternative location is approved by the Director provided that the Director must have determined that such location is permanent and provides close and easy access to users. . . . (G) Shared Parking. Where a mix of uses creates staggered peak periods of parking demand, shared parking calculations shall be made to reduce the total amount of required parking. Retail, office, institutional and entertainment uses may share parking areas. . . . (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four and above 3.0 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached - 3 - 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: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit * One or less 0.75 Two 1 Three 1.25 Four and above 1.5 Rent-by-the Bedroom Parking Spaces Per Bedroom All bedrooms 0.75 *Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure. a. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone may reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces by providing demand mitigation elements as shown in the following table: - 4 - Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction*** Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit for Sale or for Rent (equal to or less than 60% Area Median Income) 60% Transit Passes for each tenant 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service A 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Shared Parking Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Parking Impact Study Based on Approved Alternative Compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on Approved Alternative Compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and shall be subject to audit for the duration of the project. *** Maximum of 50% reduction without provision of a Parking Impact Study or Transportation Demand Management. 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 - 5 - forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management proposal, or Shared Parking Study which addresses issues identified in the City’s submittal requirements for such studies. b. 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 Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management proposal, or Shared Parking Study together with the proposed plan's compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. . . . (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (a) The table below sets forth the number of minimum required and maximum allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on-street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20) percent. Use Minimum Parking Spaces Maximum Parking Spaces Restaurants a. Fast Food b. Standard 7/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. - 6 - 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 General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Personal Business and Service Shop 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Shopping Center 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Medical Office 2/1000 sq. ft. 4.5/1000 sq. ft. Financial Services 2/1000 sq. ft. 3.5/1000 sq. ft. Grocery Store, Supermarket 3/1000 sq. ft. 6/1000 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 Vehicle Servicing & Maintenance 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry 1/1000 sq. ft. 2/1000 sq. ft. Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit Health Facilities a. Hospitals b. Long-Term Care Facilities 0.5/bed 1/bed .33/bed plus 1/two employees on major shift Industrial: Employee Parking 0.5/employee .75/employee - 7 - (b) Existing Buildings Exemption: Change in use of an existing building shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the expansion or enlargement of an existing building which does not result in the material increase of the building by more than twenty-five (25) percent, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the redevelopment of a property which includes the demolition of existing buildings, the minimum parking requirement shall be applied to the net increase in the square footage of new buildings. (c) TOD Overlay Zone Exemption: If new development is proposed within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone, twenty-five (25) percent of the square footage of gross leaseable area of such new development, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. The exemption shall be distributed proportionally among the uses contained in a mixed-use development. (d) For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed. (e) For non-residential uses within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone the required minimum number of parking spaces may be reduced by providing demand mitigation strategies as shown in the following table: Demand Mitigation Strategy** Parking Requirement Reduction Transit Passes for every employee within the development 10% Car Share 5 spaces/1 car share Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station. (Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant, contiguous improved walkway measured from the most remote building entrance to the transit station and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian easement.) 10% Off-Site Parking 1:1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service A 10% - 8 - Shared Parking Based on approved alternative compliance Parking Impact Study Based on approved alternative compliance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Based on approved alternative compliance **All demand mitigation strategies shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and shall be subject to audit for the duration of the project. (3) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio (as measured by the number of parking spaces based on the applicable unit of measurement established in the table contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) for nonresidential land uses or the number of parking spaces based on use for recreational and institutional land uses) that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. (a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management analysis, or Shared Parking Study which addresses issues identified in the City’s submittal requirements for such studies. . . . Section 2. That Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility . . . (J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for: - 9 - (1) hours of operation and deliveries; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3) placement of trash receptacles; (4) location of loading and delivery zones; (5) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7) location and number of off-street parking spaces. Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Transportation Demand Management” which reads in its entirety as follows: Transportation Demand Management shall mean a comprehensive program utilizing strategies to be implemented that result in more efficient use of transportation and parking resources. These strategies typically include, but are not limited to, transit subsidies, enhanced bicycle facilities, car/vanpool options, and shared parking. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of November, 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk - 10 - Passed and adopted on final reading on this 18th day of November, A.D. 2014. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk