HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-100-11/04/2014-APPROVING THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PARKING STUDY RESOLUTION 2014-100
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
PARKING STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council expressed
concerns regarding the lack of development-provided parking spaces in relation to the parking
demand, and the potential for spillover parking in adjacent neighborhoods, in the Transit-
Oriented Development ("TOD") Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, affected neighbors in the TOD zone have expressed concerns to the City
Council about the need for parking structures to accommodate the envisioned density in certain
areas of the TOD Overlay Zone; and
WHEREAS, City staff has engaged the services of Kimli-Horn and Associates, Inc., to
conduct the TOD Parking Study (the "Study") and as a part of the Study, extensive public
outreach and research on national best practices was conducted and advice was received from the
Planning and Zoning Board, the Parking Advisory Board and the Transportation Board; and
WHEREAS, it was concluded as part of the Study that the City's vision for walkable and
transit-oriented infill and redevelopment, although commendable, may not be entirely practical
because even though the automobile is not routinely needed, residents in the TOD zone continue
to own cars and need to store them appropriately; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Parking Advisory Board and the
Transportation Board have all recommended that the City Council approve the Study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the Study be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TFIE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the Transit-Oriented Development Parking Study prepared by Kimli-Horn
and Associates, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein is
hereby approved.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th
day of November, A.D. 2014.
cF FONT
ATTEST: c`: CO
r
City Clerk •.........
'
rv,�1DD
- 1 -
�r i� � JJ ■y� _ rr. 1 y I, r _.yl,
" _
o] Will 1 0
- mn
.1� ' 111111'�11111111 .. .�
1lj�gnl��lY�glll � . �1J
11115_=11 11 � 111' 1C111111.
r. 1 111- III!!�!f.•II
' •�• nlllm-n]
,� �IIIIIIIIC�� '
I�Ii9!!=_=ei1�11"' III►
��1»1�,7.7J IIIIIY��I'►�1�C"*. r?a`La� ,
1 � ` � III=:IA � ' � � �t�• � .� '� r!�� - _
�` / i . .� `� CIE i " t •�.�75- ' Ism • ' � '- . I - • - �_
to 1 ` . do
Ma
91
-
�� � ��,p''.n rc�■ " LAY I� t
I � r �S► E _
PARKING STUDY
DRAFT REPORT -
Transit- Oriented Development Ccy °f
p Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY L11
mom
TABLE of CONTENTS
Contents
ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction and Project Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Planning Context — Building on Adopted Community Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Parking Requirements Reform — The Scholarly Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TripleBottom Line Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
BestPractices Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
PeerCity Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
PublicInvolvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 71
AlternativesAssessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
AdditionalResources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2
� t Transit- Oriented Development Witco^inns
PARKING STUDY
Executive Summary
Background :
The purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, and
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 is to incentivize redevelopment on
challenging infill sites, and show commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) investment .
Problem Statement :
In 2013, as development activity increased in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone, the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council expressed concerns associated with the increasing number of multi -family and mixed -
use housing (with a student-oriented housing emphasis ) projects . The concerns include a perceived lack of
development- provided parking spaces in relation to the parking demand generated, and thus the potential for spill -over
parking into adjacent neighborhoods . Concerns have also been expressed about the need for parking structures to
accommodate the envisioned density .
Fueled by these concerns, the City Council adopted a "stop-gap" ordinance ( Ord . 121 , 2013 ) requiring minimum parking
in the TOD Overlay Zone . The temporary minimum requirement is 70% of the existing standard outside the TOD Overlay
Zone with an alternative compliance element that permits a parking impact study to show a reduction in parking
demand .
Five Recommendations :
1 . Minimum parking requirements for development projects that vary based on land use;
2 . Allow for alternative compliance based on parking demand mitigation strategies;
3 . On -street paid parking with modern management technology;
4 . Public- private partnerships for parking structures; and
5 . Monitor effects of MAX Bus Rapid Transit on parking conditions in the long term .
Study Approach and Process :
The Study team evaluated 1 ) planning context in terms of existing city policies and regulations related to TOD; 2 )
research of parking literature, best practices, and peer cities; 3 ) triple- bottom - line analysis; 4) public involvement and
stakeholder feedback; 5 ) parking utilization data collected throughout the Overlay Zone; and 6 ) review of alternatives .
3
� rt _ Transit- Oriented Development , FCity of
ort couins
' PARKING STUDY 11
Introduction and Project Purpose
Background :
The Transit-Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone City of Fort Collins
primarily consists of the commercial districts in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone /
College Avenue and Mason Street Corridors, Downtown W�NEDR
E WNE DR
and the CSU Campus areas . The purpose of the TOD
Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, IAPORTEAVE ............411
4
walkable infill and redevelopment projects . Adopted in
2006-07 the TOD Overlay Zone standards removed WYUgERRYlT _�� ,_ �qb —E "RLNMW51T
. a
minimum parking requirements for mixed - use and multi - W AURELSTP u -�yql ,; ,
-W ELQARETH ST g I
family dwellings . The intent was to incentivize -t —d
redevelopment on challenging infill sites show
commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) WPROSPECT Rp —� ERROSRECt RD -
investment, and to encourage urban densities as a result I +
of the Growth Management Area ( GMA) . The amount of
parking was expected to be driven by market demand ,
-- - -- WDRARF RD - - E DRAY.E RD- < ,� ----�-
balancing the need to provide adequate parking as an
n
amenity, with the constraints of maximizing development
I R
potential on difficult infill sites .
---�--w HOP EETOOTH RD E HORSETOOTH RD
Problem Statement :
W COUNTY ROAD )EE �q
In 2013, as development activity increased in the TOD _ •,, r
Overlay Zone, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City I I
W MARIIDRY RD- .� E NAIRIOIIY Pp --
Council expressed concerns with an increasing number of
multi -family and mixed - use housing projects with a I
student-oriented housing emphasis . The concerns
include a perceived lack of development- provided Legend
_ o _e a s i Miles
parking spaces in relation to the parking demand they are Growth Management Area TOO Overlay Zone
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 assistance of an expert
consultant, are conducting a TOD Overlay Zone Parking Study (this report) that will result in a plan to implement
4
7 cit
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
YfEollins
PARKING STUDY
.H
S
permanent comprehensive parking requirements based on an evaluation of parking utilization information and best
practices .
Study 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 .
Study Approach and Process :
1 ) Review Planning Context
o The Study evaluated major City planning documents that relevant to the planning framework and context for
the TOD Overlay Zone : City Plan ( 2011 ) , Parking Plan ( 2012 ), Midtown Plan ( 2013 ), and Transportation Master
Plan ( 2011 ) . In summary, these documents encourage mixed -use infill and redevelopment within targeted areas
( particularly the TOD Overlay Zone ), support more multi - modal transportation options, and acknowledge the
need to preservation neighborhood character.
2 ) Research Best Practices
o Parking Literature Review : Much of the leading research on parking policy can be summarized with the following
quotes, "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 could have been used instead for residential or
commercial development or public realm uses such as parks and plazas . " ( Mark Gander, Director of Urban
Mobility and Development at AECOM )
o Establishing Parking Requirements : According to Todd Litman, author of Parking Management Best Practices,
should consider the following in order to create parking requirements tailored to specific development projects :
o Surrounding land use mix .
o Availability of transportation choices .
o Population and development density .
o Development type and size .
o Peer Cities Review Related to Zoning Policy and Parking Requirements : A review of best practices and policies
from other communities was conducted . Best practices in this area involve providing lower minimum parking
5
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYf�
oil
' �\
requirements in TOD areas with alternative compliance mechanisms that provide opportunities to reduce
parking demand further based on data driven processes incorporating a comprehensive approach that leverages
shared public/private facilities and a range of transportation demand management options for private
development .
3 ) Conduct Triple Bottom Line Analysis
o Consistent with City sustainability policy, a "triple bottom line" analysis was conducted by staff from several City
departments using the City' s Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM ) exercise . This assessment identified
potential strengths, limitations, opportunities and threats in the categories of social, economic and
environmental impacts related to the reinstatement of minimum parking requirements compared to the
previous policy which eliminated minimum parking requirements . In summary, the TBLAM suggests a balance of
strengths and limitations in regard to minimum parking requirements, and recommends additional TBLAMs with
more information and other stakeholders .
4) Involve Public and Stakeholders
o An extensive community outreach process provided a wide range of opinions and concerns . Many expressed the
opinion that while the vision and goals of the City related to the TOD corridor are commendable, people still
have cars and need a place to put them . Accessible, but off-site vehicle storage emerged as a key strategy for
evaluation . The concept of pursuing public/ private partnerships as a preferred mechanism for developing a
variety of shared parking assets as a component of a district specific targeted development strategy ( Business
Scorecard approach referenced later in this report) emerged as a best practice and study recommendation .
o Identification of Special Issues : The primary "special issue" identified with this study had to do with the fact that
these policy issues were being addressed before the MAX line is up and running. If the MAX line is successful, as
anticipated , this may have an impact on a range of issues including parking demand reductions, traffic
congestion , increased investment and development, etc . Development of a process for on -going review and
assessment was recommended .
5 ) Collect Parking Utilization Data
o Parking utilization surveys were conducted around seven recent development projects within the TOD Overlay
Zone, including the Summit . The bottom line was that parking utilization rates were within acceptable ranges
( i . e . , none would have met the minimum standard required to initiate the City' s residential parking permit
process) . 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 believed .
6 ) Identify and Explore Alternatives
o Each of these alternatives was assessed in this study and this analysis framed and informed the ultimate
recommendations . No changes to current requirements
■ Minimum parking requirements with an alternative compliance based on a parking impact study
■ Parking requirements based on a parking impact study, with a development size threshold
■ Use of a parking demand model to determine a dynamic parking requirement that responds to transit and
infrastructure build -out
■ Parking impact or In - lieu fees
6
71
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
+ � PARKING STUDY � ��1
■ Strategies for less surface parking and more structured parking
■ Other innovations or strategies not mentioned above
■ A combination of the above options
7
it Transit- Oriented Development Fcicy ollins
°f
� 5 PARKING STUDY
Planning Context - Building on Adopted Community Policy
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 study is being evaluated . It is important to note that this planning
work builds on work that has been previously vetted through significant community discussion and adopted as City
policy.
PLAN FORT COLLINS
The name Plan Fort Collins refers to the 2010 process to develop
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 City Plan `\ Fort Collins
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
innovate•sustain• connect
size and character of Fort Collins, and also included updates to
reflect changes to and new trends in the community.
Specific principles and policies related to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone :
Principle LIV 1 : City development will be contained by well -defined boundaries that will be managed using various
tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental
Agreements.
Policy LIV 191 — Utilize a Growth Management Area
Collaborate with the County and other jurisdictions in utilizing a Growth Management Area ( GMA) surrounding Fort
Collins to guide and manage growth outside of the City limits and delineate the extent of urban development in Fort
Collins .
8
, - Transit- Oriented Development For
tcoulns
ryer
`ri PARKING STUDY 11
Principle LIV 5 : The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Areas Map.
Policy LIV 5 . 1 — Encourage Targeted
Redevelopment and Infill r towns Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas PIan .Fortcdlns
Encourage redevelopment and infill in ""°
Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Areas identified on the ae�sa CeiS
aunlry-(dlub
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment
\' � Mountain Vista
Will .
,
Areas Map ( See Figure LIV 1 ) . The R
purpose of these areas is to :
o Promote the revitalization of \ _ Icy
existing, underutilized commercial
1 �Aluhhy
and industrial areas . �.
o Concentrate higher density ` � --
housing and mixed - use
a
development in locations that are
currently or will be served by high — I- — "°
frequency transit in the future and
that can support higher levels of — "r°" '�
activity.
o Channel development where it will
be beneficial and can best improve r
access to jobs, housing, and
services with fewer and shorter
auto trips .
o Promote reinvestment in areas r
apente 5
where infrastructure already
exists .
o Increase economic activity in the Targeted Redevelopment Areas Targeted Activity Center
NO NAM Other Activity Center
area to benefit existing residents IEast Willoorry Corridor Growth Management Area
2 Midtown Candor
and businesses and , where ,3 OCaraiusWColle City Limits
necessary, provide the stimulus to 5C3un Enhanced Travel Corridor
— '
Transit Oriented Development Overlay v q, fe LIV
redevelop .
Areas identified on the Targeted Infill
and Redevelopment Areas Map are
parts of the city where general
agreement exists that redevelopment and infill would be beneficial . These areas are generally considered a priority for
efforts to reduce barriers and concentrate public investment in infrastructure . However, of the areas identified , the
9
Transit- Oriented Development Fort ns
PARKING STUDY
"community spine" (see Policy LIV 5 . 2 ) shall be the highest priority location for such efforts . Areas not shown on the
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas map are not excluded from redevelopment and infill activity, but are
considered to be lower priority or where activity is less likely to occur for other reasons .
Policy LIV 6. 2 — Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods
Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent
buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes,
relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and
recesses . Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity.
Policy LIV 6. 3 — Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood- Related, Non-Residential Development
Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such
facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood ' s positive
characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions .
Policy LIV 7 .4 — Maximize Land for Residential Development
Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for
development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability.
Policy LIV 7 .7 — Accommodate the Student Population
Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses
and/or that are well -served by public transportation .
Principle LIV 10 : The city's streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience
of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will
contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city.
Policy LIV 10. 1 — Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets
Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be
functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a
layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes . Include elements such as shade trees,
landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape . Approve alternative
street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as "green" stormwater functions,
important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet
necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements .
Policy EH 4 . 2 — Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment
Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill
development and redevelopment . Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a
sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment .
Principle ENV 9 : The City will reduce total mobile source emissions by focusing on both technology ( e .g., tailpipe
emissions) and behavior (e .g., driving patterns) .
10
%
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development Ytcollins
`r PARKING STUDY 11
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 F` "t . • l�Gns
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 y;
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 . j
Transportation Master- Plan % Fort Collins
F et. ear; . . GGI I
MEMO
J
innovate sustain connect
11
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
ClltyfEollins
rr
PARKING STUDY
. , : �
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 Innovate , Sustain ,
policies are addressed within each of the seven topic- based
chapters in this plan . Connect
Innovate
Community Vision - Innovate , Sustain , Connect The citizens of Fort Collins wish to advance their future
in a positive and vital way, and City government,
The City identified in its previous plans the community educational, and other institutions, as well as the
values and critical issues for building a framework that private sector, have always been willing to lead and
combines traditional planning principles and land serve as models for other communities. Our vision
development practices through planning directives and a reflects our desire to remain innovative, world -class
community vision . A vision represents a desired future as leaders.
defined by the community . Three major themes of Plan Fort
Sustain
Collins provide direction for the vision for the next 25 years
The basic tenets of sustainability serve as the guiding
and beyond : Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. 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 .
12
7, �' Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
f 1
, PARKING STUDY
MM
PARKING PLAN : DOWNTOWN & SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ( 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 t
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 Parking Plans* Fort Collins
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 .
CRYCO
Parking is one of those activities that literally provide millions of
Collins
"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 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 :
13
7, _ Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
tcouins
PARKING STUDY
• 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
Fort Collins of uses and activities that will serve a broad spectrum of the community. It
MIDTOWN PLAN envisions a district with a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other parts
ACIR11Ni TIE 115161 FOR I RE11FA111FI, I9/IRIT-I1IFIIII, IFIFI-I&E RE16MIGANDOD of the city, and that will ultimately be a destination in its own right .
T
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
M1 }: residents and an important economic generator for the city. It also should
j � serve abutting residential neighborhoods and be conveniently accessible from
them with the improvements of existing and addition of new streets
throughout Midtown .
FROLIC AOIER DRAFT - RAF 24, 20I1
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 .
14
74**
Transit- Oriented Development Fort ns
PARKING STUDY
N am"
Y,
e
rr�-- _ —
�. I.r nnsrrao
I
College Avenue will continue to be a major north -south regional connection , !
I
but new development will be more urban in nature and buildings will U
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 . � .
Legend
..o
Midtown Plan Area ""r 'n
(darker aenal areal .1t
— Character Area Boundary I
�..
Gateway
1
(Future) Civic Amenity
r
iapproxnnate locatons)
• May he a park, plaza, or other gathering
place
• One be, Character Area =b- ----- - -
�r I
� (Future) Privately developed
Plazas and Open Spaces
• Approximate locations to, dlustrat ve
purposes
• Incentives may be provided �-
• At owner's option '
C>=:o Key Streetscape Node j
• Each design palette relates to the
respechve MAX Station
• Visually links MAX with College Ave
trGRraOprO. . . .. .t
tl� MAX Guideway N /
i
® MAX Station 0Potential Structured Parking location
Locations are Illustrative
Promenade Segments
• Design varies by Character Area r
College Avenue Corridor t •� ! I
Internal Circulation Opportunities
• Many Irclude actpS. hikes and peds
• Some are bikes and peds. depeniing I a.. r
on specific development I ,
• Locations are dlustrahve. specifics ^ t
depend upon indivdual development •�
projects r r •\
u Existing Underpass !
I •�
o Future Grade Separated
Crossing
L�7n\/ • Planned or poteitial
V _
Ped/Bike Access to
Neighborhoods j
Mason Trail I
I
Upper Midtown I : .-
I
Central Midtown
Lower Midtown a~• L -
15
Transit- Oriented Development C"ofCollins
PARKING STUDY 11
_ � .
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
This section 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 . 2 . 2 (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) .
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 :
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less 1 .5
Two F 1 .75
Three F 2.0
Four and above F 3 .0
16
�, �' Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
Jr7 PARKING STUDY 11
X
L
* 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 ) :
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Parking Spaces Per Dwelling
Unit Unit
One or less � 1 . 1
Two 1 .2
Three 1 .4
Four and above 2. 1
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 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
17
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYfMM
V
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.
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 .
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.
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 "pay its own way . " This means private-
sector developers are designing and constructing many improvements which will become a part of the public
18
71
Transit- Oriented Development City °f
p Fort Collins
+ � PARKING STUDY � ��1
infrastructure maintained by the City . So another purpose of development review process is to ensure consistent and
good quality public improvements .
19
Transit- Oriented Development ,F�tcouins
PARKING STUDY 11
Parking Requirements Reform — The Scholarly Debate
This section of the report explores several important topics that are very relevant to this study . F
There is in fact a serious and significant national discussion occurring related to benefits and ^ F,
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 P^
Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, has 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 _
'h Cost of
parking requirements . Fr" PaIridng
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 could have been used instead for residential or
commercial development or public realm uses such as parks and plazas.
20
1 - Transit- Oriented Development Fort ns
� p , PARKING STUDY
MM
"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.
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.
21
- Transit- Oriented Develo ment at
P , For Collins
PARKING STUDY
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, s- Gi L _ I �' !' JP 10 `'
along with the ' :� ,.� � �- i . ,r .ra •R"-• � J �
information developed
b a parking supply and
Y p 9 ppY
demand study,
municipalities should
make every effort to ✓;�' _,� ' + � �/ !: a�.por
reduce the parking k ', e� %j `� •e '
requirements for TOD
projects. Eliminating
parking minimums and A p
fit
instead employing
parking maximums for
TOD projects will help78
decrease parking 00aai; lU
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.
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.
22
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
i PARKING STUDY
MM
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.
23
Transit- Oriented Development citYof
p , Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
4.,
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 .
■ LIMING VS PARKING
- SPACE SPACE
parking required by city laws across the United States
Cil
Seattle
Porlland
AN MwreWOIM M11 2 4r Oh
■ 1 acl X
■ Ncle�eura �Newr«k
San Sxrsmrrrta PhiILONphiB
FF41Vi44Q ■� ® J a,pera ■1
■1 derroer OMA3 �� Pttdh rghIN Ipmprb
■ O, Irrdianapnlu ■o coin*u
Sdn JOH•, ■! ❑It ■, �Nashirgon, Q.C.
Fres Colorado Spnr� Rerrsu City. KO
No
Loulvdille
Wlv&Z3 Tyiss �. ar no
M1 ME
❑N
LOB ■� NLlivib � 1�lkw '
Lei; +3rgtk5Elm
B ❑Wmtia Alhuqurrquc OkUhorna City Memphis
Oar L7 .-gn
❑�T.i[San rJ- � apartment ■ w parlcMrg
El FAjo Fart vvarth
•sh � Jai , 900 W I rectangle (1) _
�.actln o 1 Waac = 325 ft,
on Orlando
Elm Orle III
arc fxaF•x4oFor
Taman PARKING P49* RED
■ N FOR A 2 MEM ON
Mwni APARTMENT (9oa FT3)h
3
3 t�mo nn
t I bQili�m
4k Ililllllllll II I III �� � I a04MINIMUM
jwe.nwa
OY
o-�`� `f � • a�� '"� x ' � � � � �'� �� 4Z. L � npn TM ENT nn
- sx r CF VARIOUS UNIT SIZES
24
7
Transit- Oriented Development For Ens
=p , PARKING STUDY
Moo
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
minimums . BIN PARKING MINs '.
to ease up on parking14
In Auckland , New Zealand, their City HOW ONE SILLY LITTLE RULE IS RUINING AUCKLAND .
Council is debating whether to WHY IS IT —THE BAD RULE —
include traditional parking minimum A " BAD " "for every residential unit there shall be at least
requirements as an element of their .> two off-street parking spaces provided"
Unitary Plan ( comparable to City RULE .
Comprehensive Plans in the US) . The
ad to the right illustrates how some RIDICULOUS
0
advocacy groups are trying to COST
(Underground parking adds avrg $50.000 per park)
influence the debate . 3XU„IT$
POOP JSF OF 6X PARK
In the following pages we examine 0 URBAN SPACE
the origins of parking requirements, (1/3 of new developments devoted to car parks)
the impediments to change, and how
these policies can be reformed . ® REDUCES TRANSPORT �Q CHOICE OR INSTEAD
��(creates expectation you should always own a car) TLet People Decide.
COUNCIL IS DECIDING ON INCLUDING THIS RULE IN THE UNITARY PLAN .
They probably don't think anyone cares about it. We sure do.
# BIN THE
PARKING
generation
Let them know_.. zere
25
� rt Transit- Oriented Development Witco^inns
PARKING STUDY
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 215` 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.
26
Transit- Oriented Development Fort
PARKING STUDY 11
Establishing Parking Requirements
On the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI ) website and in his book on Parking
Management Best Practices, 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 .
• Surrounding land use mix .
27
r Transit- Oriented Development Fort ns
PARKING STUDY
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 Reduction
Shared Parking Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations. 10-30%
Parking Regulations Regulations favor higher-value uses such as service vehicles, deliveries, 10-30%
customers, quick errands, and people with special needs.
More Accurate and Flexible Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a 10-30%
Standards particular situation .
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 10-30% x
more parking sharing and use of alternative modes .
Walking and Cycling Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range of 5- 15% x
Improvements destinations serviced by a parking facility.
Increase Capacity of Existing Increase parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, 5- 15% x
Facilities car stackers and valet parking.
Mobility Management Encourage more efficient travel patterns, including changes in mode, 10-30% x
timing, destination and vehicle trip frequency.
28
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
CltyfEollins
=r+ ' ,� , PARKING STUDY
� s
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 Varies X
effective.
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 Provide convenient and accurate information on parking availability and 5- 15% X
Marketing price, using maps, signs, brochures and electronic communication .
Improve Enforcement Insure that parking regulation enforcement is efficient, considerate and Varies
fair.
Transportation Management Establish member-controlled organizations that provide transport and Varies X
Associations parking management services in a particular area .
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 Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve problems and Varies
Operation support parking management.
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 .
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 .
29
71
Transit- Oriented Development Cityory F °f
p ollins
PARKING STUDY 11
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 PARKING
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 . Made Easy
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 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.
30
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
ry r
`ri PARKING STUDY 11
y .
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
The Case FOR Parking Minimum Requirements
> Encourages private vehicle usage and lengthens
> Reduce street congestion around the trips
development site > Adversely impacts transit and alternative modes
> Avoid parking spillover
> Reduces development density
> Create orderly development patterns
> Creates inhospitable project design
> Anticipate possible intensification or changes
in the use of a development > Thwarts development and economic activity ( little
> Create a level playing field among developers or no direct revenue )
>
> Encourage growth of core areas by increasing Makes construction of affordable housing more
parking supply in those areas challenging
> Reduce parking management by making the > Hampers investment in infill development and
adjudication of conflicts between property adaptive reuse in core areas
owners unnecessary 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
31
, ' _ Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
tcouins
jr ,W
PARKING STUDY
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 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 adjustment 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
32
74**
Transit- Oriented Development Fort ns
PARKING STUDY
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 :
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 .
33
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
a.MIA
RESPONSEDevelopers Response to Parking Requirements
MINIMUM M" IMUM
APPROACH REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
Traditional > Uthlaalion None Rarely builds more than the requirement
Moderate reform = Utilization None Assesses market for project, may exceed the minimum
Big city approach < Utilization A fixed ratio or percentage Makes market decision whether to supply the minimum or build
of minimum to the maximum
Partial deregulation None A fixed ratio Makes market decision whether to supply any parking or build to the maximum
Deregulation None None Makes the market decision whether/how much to build
34
Transit- Oriented Development Fort
i PARKING STUDY 11
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 ENAN BEN-JOSEVN
should take them more seriously. '
1
There are an estimated 600, 000, 000 passenger cars in the world , and that number is LOT
increasing every day. So too is Earth ' s supply of parking spaces . In some cities, parking lots CULTURE
'
cover more than one-third of the metropolitan footprint . It ' s official : we have paved OF PARKING
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.
35
Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
PARKING STUDY 11
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 [ Ben -Joseph ] 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 . —
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.
36
Transit- Oriented Development Fort couins
PARKING STUDY 11
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 f`'
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 P n Veen
nt charge Ne Yghtn
during Me m6ft
greater intent, parking lots could actually become significant public Pistsst „o � P,� ""°; •+
spaces, contributing as much to their communities as great boulevards, P is " " M the eev °`
parks or plazas . For instance, the Italian architect Renzo Piano, when t«narrowMt�wmes
redesigning the Fiat Lingotto factory in Turin , eliminated the parking 'Wks WreW • -
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 "� 49
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.
ILL
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 allee that leads to the museum' s lobby.
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 ?
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 "student housing oriented projects" compared to other
37
, ' Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
_ Off PARKING STUDY J
04
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 .
38
- Transit- Oriented Development city °f
evep Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
MINE
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM)
TBLAM process was conducted in Collaboration with the City of Fort Collins Planning Services, FC Moves, Parking
Services, Accounting, Transfort and Economic Health Departments .
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 the time the TBLAM was conducted, was largely anecdotal . Collecting additional parking- related
data became a priority task.
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 .
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.
39
Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
, PARKING STUDY Ile
Triple Badom Lira Analysis Map JBLAM ) Cltyo-f
Project or decision: TQD Parking Study — Status Quo Evaluated by: FD Moves , Planning : Fort Collins
TESL Team
Social Economic Environmental
STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS :
Currem system allows flexibilky irk the numberof park ing Allows developer to maxim me the use of their property irk terms _ _ = _ = ; =sthe useoftransitardotheraltemativemodes
spaces providedso that the marketcan drive the amount of of density of . r= _•ei
parking provided Nol qav mg presc*4iveparkirg requiamenls could allow us to Nc. 5V Fig prescr%liveparkiing requiemenis could allow
• Nct having plescrApnreparxing requiemenls could a&m us adhieveour densiy vision u:i . : a. vave ourdensiy vision
to achieve cur density vision No: � aving parking minimums helps to minimme the heat
islar. aff--.<1 by favirg smaller parking lots
Smaller park ira k1z also allows more area to remain in
open land and infiltratestormwater
LIMITATIONS: LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS:
Lack ofa presodptive numberof parking spaces lacks Allowing parking deoisiorts to be made orb a site-try-site basis If rV er-ough parking is provided, people will drive f ff& erto
pre; ictabilityforsurrour, ir, r=i, FbarFoo, s mayrrotalkxk ustaaohieveourov3ralldensrtyvislon bralea parking s pace and ultimately, more emisslorrswill
Posaibilityofspillaver park irg irloa•:jacerl neighborhood . Making parkirg cecisions orb asrt"b site bads is may mean r33uh
areas that develap=_rs are riot paying their fair shareof the parking VJhfoulaufficierloreasil bcalable parking, people will
Allowing parking dectsionstobe made orb asit - site amenities re; uired by their development crndeefora parkin, spacewlirf r=auhs in increased
basis may not allow usto achieve our overall derrsityvislon + Somedevelap=_rs may perceive that the currentsituatlonas emissions
Stardands are TOO best practices andthetrartsit isnOtyet more ccaihy as a parking garage may be required to meet the
op=_rai raral parking demand
OPPORTUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES:
M Less parking ka& toa more walkable development pamm i Havirga less presodptive requirement allows a more effloieni LIDlemrironmertalopporturkVwkhsmallerparking lots?
• Havinga less prescriptive requirement allows a more use of s pace arrda greater maof uses {9asir?)
effloiem use ofs pace arrdagreater mix of uses a PubliolprnraGe partners hips for parking garages and more
strategic parking of cars
THREATS: THREATS: THREATS:
• Ar Lrderestimation in the Kral of parking required could An underestimation in the level of parking required could affect An overestimation in the amourrtof parking could reduce the
affeellf=_ aurroundingrte , fbaftd and oammunity the viability of the project amount of open lard available for otherteneficial uses such
p=_rcep1 rar of 1 Fe ]pals of 1l =e TAD as stormwaier infiltration
Ur.=_reslimalbrs alsoaffaoi slaffingardfinanoial
rasouro-as for park irg managemenrt, the City then has to
a•.c ras s 1 he externalities created by the underestimation
40
it Transit- Oriented Development F City
tins
Ile
PARKING STUDY
Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map ( TBLAM
Cltyof
Project or decision : TOD Parking Study - Minimums Evaluated by: FD Moves , Punning : Fart Ilia
TPL Team ��
Social Economic Environmental
t Ede =• f park irgplare + More predictability for the development eommunity + Havinrgag a •arlek; park ings pace redweseruisingand
+ Morpr_, .=: aadily for sLrroLndingneighbodicods - Less experts ive to build s urface parking potential i�•_ •eza= •_fa • =.missians
Minimums are more palatable and easier to understand
+ Less likelihood of spillover parking onto surrounrding
neighborhoods
+
LIMITATIC•MS: LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS:
vo. _ •=sLh in decreased densities + Parking minimums could res Lift indecreased dens ities + Havingaguaranteed park irg s pace will Iik,elyincrease
+ E¢c ea =sautamobile travel over other modes Minimums may be so high that itdiseourages development and automobile use and ircraas= emissions
+ Inhibhs affordable housing projects redevebpmemintargetedinf ill areas + Parking minimums COL l: r>> Lhirdecreasedderesities
+ Projects with more parking aregeneralhj less attractive + Inhibits affordable housing projects and + Parking minimums eneoLra4;Ets autamobile travel over oiher
{urban design) + Makes rnf ill devebpmerrts on more chalksngrng sites diffnultto modes
+ Lack offlexibility with a prescriptive minim Lim standards develop
does not alkxh for a context-bases solution
+ Historically, parking minimums tend to over park sites
OPPOrRIRJNITII=S- OPPORTUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES:
+ voLlJ3siabli; ha minim um Thai om-s roiover-parkIF> sh Shes •f, Fer3 •rj3ov.Rr-parked could serve as a f ul u res ite for + Sh-2swI.3ra •k-2ov-2r-parker, could serve as afuturesite
• { : =ivr fir= over-parked roLl, derveasafr.ir. resh= for park irg aharirgorr-=-�;=_Nebpmerrt for park irgstarirgorr-=-�;=_N=bpmerrt
�s.rkirg sharing or redevebpmeni +
+
TH R EATS: TH R EATS: TH R EATS:
+ MAX may not besuccessful berausethere is not enough Makes irrFiIldevelopments an more challenging sites difficult ID + MAX may not besucaessful because there is not enough
ridership (everyone is driving) :erelop ridership (everyone is driving
+ Less effbient land use patterns MAX may not besuocessful because there is not enough + Less effbient land use patterns
ridership (aNaryone is driving)
L-Rii effieieri land use patterns
41
Transit- Oriented Development Witco^inns
PARKING STUDY
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
• New Zoning Districts or Specific Plans
• Parking Freezes
• Reductions for Affordable and Senior Housing
• Case- By-Case Evaluation
• Land Banking and Landscape Reserves
42
r Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
71
0 0 PARKING STUDY f�
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 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 .
43
7
Transit- Oriented Development For Ens
PARKING STUDY
Y_
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 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.
44
Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYf�
mom
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.
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 .
45
74%
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
CltyfEollins
PARKING STUDY
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 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 .
46
%
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
ry r
`r PARKING STUDY 11
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 trips 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 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
47
, ' Transit- Oriented Development For
Collins
�f1
PARKING STUDY
MM
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 .
48
r ' - _ r* Transit- Oriented Development C"ofCollins
n r*
ie
PARKING STUDY 11
s
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 .
➢ 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 .
49
7, �' - Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYf�
➢ 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 %-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 and
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
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
50
%
r' Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
,r, , PARKING STUDYf�
w
MM
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 .
51
7, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
T r
PARKING STUDY �1
.w
S
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 .
52
Transit- Oriented Development CI F�Y °f
p � t Collins
`c;
PARKING STUDYho
11
f
PARKING STANDARDS SUMMARY
The following parking standards are provided for comparison purposes based on the Peer City Reviews and current Fort Collins Parking requirements
CITY OF FORT COLLINS (within CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA CITY OF BERKLEY, CA CITY OF EUGENE, OR CITY OF PORTLAND, OR
USE TOD)
General Practice
Yes Minimum - Yes Yes N/A Yes; cannot exceed 125% of Yes; Maximums apply for
Maximum/Minimum minimum standards certain situations and land
Standards use
Yes; within TOD Overlay Reduced Office parking MOB/Office parking can be Up to 25% reduction from 10% reduction with transit
District (currently 70% of min standards from 4 to 3 reduced by 10%; Alternative the minimum for shared, off- plaza on site; see also
currently applies to spaces / 1 ,000' sf compliance for mixed use street parking; District Reduction in Parking with
residential uses), alternative buildings with or without specific standards also TDM
Parking Reductions compliance measures may apartments (e.g., 1 .0 / 580 sf apply (e.g., up to 50% in the
be applied (w/apt use) - 1 .0 / 530 sf Nodal Development
(w/o apt use) Overlay Zone)
If within 1 ,000' of metro If within 1/3 mile of BART If within 1 ,500' of transit
station - no parking required station; 1/4 mile of publicly station or 500' of station with
(certain, listed uses accessble parking facility; 20 min peak hour intervals -
including retail and service parking survey (500' radius), parking may be reduced or
commercial, grocery stores or provides certain types of eliminated
and restaurants uses.
First 5K sf of building
exempted from parking,
grocery store = 15K sf
exempt
N/A Off-street parking not See above Parking Within C-1 (Neighborhood
required in downtown Reductions Commercial), no parking
area(s) if project does not required to be provided if 8
exceed maximum FAR or less spaces required; 9 or
more required parking
spaces may be reduced by
providing streetscape-type
Exemptions improvements including
transit stop can reduce
required parking by 4
spaces. Outdoor restaurant
may exempt parking
requirements for first 20 seats
Shared Parkin Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes; each car/van pool Yes Yes (subsidies provided by Yes Yes (5% reduction with car
Reduction In Parking space = 4 required spaces City; transit information pool program; 5% reduction
with TDM Measures provided, etc.) if motorcycle parking
provided)
Bicycle parking required Bicycle parking required Bicycle parking required Bicycle parking required Bicycle parking required
with many land uses with many land uses with many land uses with many land uses with many land uses; every
Other Standards 5 bicycle spaces reduces
total vehicle spaces
(required) by 1
Up to 30% of parking supply 15% (max) compact car
can be compact 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 / On-street (alternative N/A Parking can be provided up Parking can be provided up Parking can be provided up Parking can be provided up
distance from site compliance/exceptions to to 600' from site (pedestrian to 300' from site to 1/4 mile from site to 500' from site
general office) route)
Commuter parking TBD N/A N/A Transit information provided N/A N/A
incentives / programs
Pool parking provided; Commuter programs City offers commuter
transit service (hours) provided services (bus, car pool, van
extended) pool)
10 + employees requires 20 + parking spaces requires
commuter program carpool parking (5 spaces
or 5% of total)
Can pay in-lieu of parking Stacked Parking (w/ Valet)
fee (where a public parking
fund exists)
11 ' - _ _ Transit- Oriented Development C"ofCollins
lie
AF ;■ PARKING STUDY 11
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 purpose of the public involvement process was 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.
• 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
54
r Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
Ln " h'C
,may :tPw PARKING STUDY
■ Developers, Jan 22 -23
■ Commercial property owners, January 22-23
■ Design community/ planners, January 22 -23
■ Board of Realtors, February 11, May 13
■ Overland Sertoma Club, February 19
■ Downtown Business Association , March 20
■ Colorado State University/Avery Park Neighborhood, March 27
■ North Front Range MPO & Larimer County Mobility Council, April 17
■ Chamber of Commerce, April 18
■ CREW of Northern Colorado, June 4
• Community Engagement Strategy #2: Engage City Boards
o Groups Engaged (January — April 2014 )
■ Planning and Zoning Board, March 7, April 4, May 8
■ Parking Advisory Board , March 10, May 12
■ Transportation Board , March 19
■ Affordable Housing Board, April 3
■ Economic Advisory Commission , May 21
■ City Council Work Session, May 27
• Community Engagement Strategy #3: General Public Involvement & Education
o Prolect Booth at Transportation Open House ( Feb 20 )
■ Attendees : 150+
o 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
• 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 Targeted Neighborhood Meetings (January — March 2014)
■ Downtown Neighborhoods, March 6
■ Midtown Neighborhoods, March 11
■ Campus Area/Avery Park Neighborhoods, March 27
55
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
T IIc
PARKING STUDY 11
S
Moil
o Tactic : Engage Media (January — April 2014 )
■ Article in Coloradoan (March 5)
■ Neighborhood Services E - Newsletter
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 . 67 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 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 .
56
Transit- Oriented Development Fort
ryor
PARKING STUDY 11
q9 ill
S
"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 .
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 :
57
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
CltyfEollins
=CP7 lot , PARKING STUDY
• 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 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.
58
Transit- Oriented Development Fort
PARKING STUDY 11� .
"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 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 .
59
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
Data Collection
Data collected by City 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 program ) 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
Public Private Percent
Property Name Date Time Occupancy Occupancy Public Capacity Private Capacity 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%
Transit- Oriented Development pit F�y °f
p � t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11
mom
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Evening Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Private
Property Name Date Time Public Occupancy 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 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%
74**
Transit- Oriented Development t�inS
PARKING STUDY
TOD Parking Study
TOD Overlay Zone Development Projects - Parking Utilization Analysis
Spring Break Parking Counts
Data Collected by City Planning Staff - March 2014
Public Private Private
Property Name Date Time Occupancy Occupancy Public Capacity 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%
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%
� rt _ Transit- Oriented Development , FCity of
ort coulns
' PARKING STUDY 11
Data Collection Sites at Multi family Developments in the TOD Overlay Zone
Willow St. Lofts +
Legacy Apartments
Penny Flats I` :! 43 . 11 %
34 . 26%
ors
gyp.
a�
Laporte St.
318 W. Myrtle
60 . 65 %
Mulberry St.
Laurel St.
N Pura Vida Flats @ The Oval Q
50 . 58 % 52 . 92 %
a� aD
s o
U
Ram 's Crossing
40 . 01 %
Prospect Rd .
Summit on College
TOD : 41 . 44%
RP3 : 79%
63
Transit- Oriented Development cos
me y °f
p � F�t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11
moo
Willow St. Lofts/Legacy Data Collection Area
1
IF
CHERRY ST
■ 7 �
yA
G
�ST 9A�
000,
MAPLE ST
��*
• fah, J
•
LAPOR TE AVE
eae a _ r
ME X
1A=J di W
MMOUNT NAVE EMOUNTAINA E
W or
W j =O N Z
V W r N
(9 QW fp■ f
W OAK S 00 d E OAK ST a m
lip
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p For ollins
PARKING STUDY 11
318 W. Myrtle Data Collection Area
w
W MYRTLE ST
0
J
■
■
ro
PL M41
PY LAUREL ST
65
Transit- Oriented Developmentat
For
TEollins
PARKING STUDY
Flats at the Oval Data Collection Area
■
, 4 1
'uu MULBERRY ST
i
d #
m
f11WA dL
N
■ o
J
w W MYRTLE c T
r rp
N
o is 7 Ing
O n
� Cifm 5 ■ � �
w 0
N � _
F r
r
�* r
W LAUREL
K
O
O
2
4
rc
i
i
OLD 4AIN DR
F
66
Transit- Oriented Development cos
me y °f
p � F�t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11
mom
Penny Flats Data Collection Area
aw
A-
%� nO
V ^ Cr
,Y \
it
CHERRY ST w�Iow ST
Mom d
07■ i
I ' L
MAPLE ST
N 1
J
W
N N
N =
W p
3 a
Cf �
S
2 =
W
J
0
LAPORTE AVE
F
z
z
J
TRIMBLE CT
67
Transit- Oriented Development cos
me y °f
p � F�t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11
mom
Pura Vida Data Collection Area
W MULBERRY ST
IN
' ■ f �-
W MYRTLE ST ~
O r -_
3 -�- IN ■ w
o �
p i , i
i
M!"lk Alk
68
Transit- Oriented Development cos
me y °f
p � F�t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11.
Ram `s Crossing Data Collection Area
SOUTH DR
w
4
q
i� c
N G
W
W PITKIN ST
� U
ANE
m p JAMES CT
� r
N m ivinfv
W LAKE ST
r �■ Moron
_.. ii LA G4 F F: TLO
'
■ :� ■ ■ . r
W PROSPECT RD
! M A
' ` J
1 5 LLL■ J
w BALSAM LN
#M� w■ d
di 16 No od
N
Np w Y JUMPER LN
HOBBITST tp p WALLEN13ERG DR
>y, qL
� iM
N * BIRKY P L
Transit- Oriented Development cos
me y °f
p � F�t Collins
PARKING STUDY 11
mom
Summit on College Data Collection Area
-Nor
y • ■ r
_
` f
; N
o W ■ a` WO
F ]MOM ME - F ' r F
. ■ W
a ■� a
till F'P. O ' F' E ] T RD N EPRO SPE � TRD
a
Wow
-t -
i ! � ■ �. FL
-R ■ � _ a0 ■ - M
iMM
D 1 1- ■ Mrc + • r -
r ■• Y ■: r " x ILr
F'ARk: P. 3T s O
i r t i w■ 1 ■
Ott
A 1
o ■
w ' ALPERT A E
LU
W W
O ■ ' ■ + ■
� 0 :. mom
y = E STUART ST
� 1 8
i
JOHNSON DR
t -- - _ SPRING PARK DR
I I U h
z
IJ+f rf Z
� W
a =
w r
3
I 4
HfD TMOUTH TRL �H
70
r1 - Transit- Oriented Development Witco^wins
lie
� - PARKING STUDY
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 and related traffic and parking
71
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
CltyfEollins
PARKING STUDY
ti -
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 .
• 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 :
72
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
s inS
c , PARKING STUDY
• 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 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 .
73
7, �' - Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYfNL
• 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 changeover 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 .
74
1 - Transit- Oriented Development C"ofCollins
lie
ii MW
PARKING STUDY 11
Recommendations
The following recommendations seek to balance the need for development- provided parking and City policies for infill
and redevelopment in the near term . In the long term, these recommendations propose to facilitate a comprehensive
approach to parking, transit, and public investment .
Recommendation #1 : Minimum Parking Requirements that Vary Based on Land Use
This recommendation is consistent with best practices in terms of lower minimum parking requirements with a
maximum requirement within the TOD Overlay Zone and allowances for reductions with demand mitigation strategies .
Multifamily and Mixed- Use Residential Land Uses
• Minimum Parking Requirements — The following minimum parking requirements represent a lower parking
requirement than outside the TOD Overlay Zone and differentiates the rent- by-the- bedroom model of leasing
that was identified as contributing to the issue of spill -over parking .
Land Use Code
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:
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement *
Rent-by-the-Bedroom
Parking spaces Per Bedroom
Multi family Dwellings
All Bedrooms 0. 75
Multifamily Dwellings
Number of Bedrooms Per Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit
One or less 0. 75
Two 1
Three 1 . 25
Four and above 1 . 5
*Maximum of 115% of minimum requirement unless provided in a structure.
The " rent- by-the- bedroom" model of leasing and managing multi -family dwellings has increased greatly in the past
decade . The recommendation to require parking provided per- bedroom is because this leasing model creates a greater
75
Transit- Oriented DevelopmentFor
CltyfEollins
PARKING STUDY
.H
7r`
occurrence of unrelated adults occupying a dwelling unit, as one must be an adult to sign a lease . Thus, creating a higher
incidence of unrelated adults and a higher vehicle ownership rate per dwelling unit .
Nonresidential Land Uses
Currently, the Land Use Code does not have minimum parking requirements for commercial land uses; it only has
maximum requirements . The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council requested this study evaluate the
implementation of minimum parking requirements for nonresidential land uses .
The recommended minimum parking requirement is approximately 50% of the maximum parking standard . This
recommendation includes exemptions for existing buildings and an additional 25% reduction for development within the
TOD Overlay Zone .
76
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
w • �
� .
Recommendation # 2 : Alternative Compliance Based on Parking Demand Mitigation Strategies
This recommendation provides flexibility for development to adequately provide parking strategies and also efficiently
develop property in targeted infill and redevelopment areas .
• Parking Requirement Reductions — The following demand mitigation strategies are demonstrated methods to
reduce parking demand and provide options for residents to use alternative modes of transportation .
Land Use Code
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:
Demand Mitigation Strategy * * Parking Requirement Reduction * * *
Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit' 0 1.
(< 50% AMI) 50/
Transit Passes for each tenant 10%2.
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
10%
most remote building entrance to the transit station
and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian
easement.)
Shared Parking Based on Shared Parking Study Results
Off-Site Parking 1 :1
Bicycle & Pedestrian LOS A 10%4.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Varies Based on Proposal
* *All demand mitigation strategies shall be recorded on the site plan 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.
77
Transit- Oriented Developmentat
For
YfEollins
�y W-!r q , PARKING STUDY
S
1Affordable Housing — Families earning 24% - 36% area median income (AMI ) have a 44% lower vehicle ownership
rate . (Source : www . non prof ithousing . org)
2Transit 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 1 - 16% 12%
Source : Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, City of Pasadena , Nelson Nygaard
3Car Share - Existing studies show that carshare members do reduce their car ownership . A study of City Carshare
members found that 29% of members either sold vehicles or avoided planned vehicle purchases when the 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 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 remain so . Still, enough households shed a vehicle after joining carshare, or
avoided purchasing a vehicle, that each carsharing vehicle replaced 9 to 13 private vehicles .
4Bike and Pedestrian Level of Service ( LOS) A - Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Walking and Cycling
Improvements Typical Parking Reduction = 5 - 15% . ( See table in draft report page 26 . )
Parking Impact Study - In addition to the predictable allowances provided with the demand mitigation strategies
outlined in recommendation one, this recommendation 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 .
Land Use Code
Sec. 3. 2. 2 (K) (1) (a)(1)(a) (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.
78
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
PARKING STUDY 11
Oil. C
a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the
submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be
accompanied by a Parking Impact Study which addresses issues identified in the City's submittal requirements for such
study.
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 together with the proposed plan 's compatibility with
surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM ) — A sample TDM checklist is shown in Appendix F . 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 starting in 2015- 16 . In the interim , the Study proposes adding a definition to the Land Use
Code for Transportation Demand Management (TDM ) so that a private proposal may utilize this
strategy .
Land Use Code
Transportation Demand Management shall mean a comprehensive program utilizing strategies that result in more
efficient use of transportation and parking resources that further the City's sustainability, infill, and redevelopment goals.
These strategies typically include, but are not limited to, transit subsidies, enhanced bicycle facilities, car/vanpool
options, and shared parking.
TDM Discussion
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
79
Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYf�
i ,•• r : _
ti -
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 .
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 .
Recommendation # 3 : On -street Paid Parking
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 . Although implementation of on -street paid parking is outside the scope of this study,
it is already being considered for further outreach and implementation by Parking Services through a budget offer for
2015- 16 . This Study acknowledges that further community dialogue must first take place in regards to where and when
this strategy would be applied, and what the pricing and management system would be used .
On -street Paid Parking Discussion
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 .
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 .
80
Transit- Oriented Development Fort
' PARKING STUDY 11
Recommendation #4 : Public/Private Partnerships for Parking Structures
Provision of parking structures through public- private partnerships was strongly supported by stakeholders and noted as
a priority by City Council . The MAX Bus Rapid Transit line has many opportune locations for such an investment . Parking
structures can provide for off-site parking and serve as an economic development incentive for projects on challenging
infill sites with limited space .
Parking Structure Investment Discussion
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 :
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 .
81
Transit- Oriented Development Fort in
PARKING STUDY
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 .
82
Transit- Oriented Development Witco^inns
PARKING STUDY
Pic
,
Recommendation # 5 : Monitor effectiveness of MAX Bus Rapid Transit on parking conditions in the long
term
Consistent feedback from stakeholders was that we have implemented TOD strategies and land use regulations before
the MAX Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) was operational . Because these strategies are premised upon a functional high -
frequency transit service, it is important to continue monitoring parking conditions in the long term . The MAX began
service in May 2014 and therefore the data collected for this study will serve as a baseline condition .
83
, ' - Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
i PARKING STUDY 11
�.
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.
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 .
84
Transit- Oriented Development Fort Collins
PARKING STUDYf�
X
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 262017334chapl . 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
85
11 ' - _ _ Transit- Oriented Development C"ofCollins
lie
PARKING STUDY 11
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
22 . Parking Best Practices — A Review of Zoning Policies and Regulations in Select US and International Cities
86
�, �' J Transit- Oriented Development F�tcoulns
PARKING STUDY 11
ti -
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
87
Transit- Oriented Development city °f
p Fort Collins
PARKING STUDY
� .L11
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Land Use Code Revision Ordinance
Appendix B — Parking Impact Study Guidelines
Appendix C — Community Engagement Questionnaire Results Summary
Appendix D — On -Street Parking Technology White Paper
Appendix E — Parking as an Economic Development Strategy White Paper
Appendix F Sample Transportation Demand Management (TDM ) Checklist
88