Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ord No 11-19-2324
Ordinance No. 11-19-2324 An Ordinance modifying the following sections of the Land Development Code: Section 20-4.4 Off-street parking requirements; Section 20-7.6 Parking; Section 20- 7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20-4.4(A) of the Land Development Code, all structures and uses which are erected, established or enlarged within the City shall provide adequate off-street parking spaces and control mechanisms for on -site vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and WHEREAS, when adequate off-street parking cannot be provided to meet the minimum requirements of the Land Development Code, the applicant may enter into a parking space fee agreement with the City and pay the appropriate annual fees; and WHEREAS, many of these agreements require the businesses pay fees in the thousands of dollars; and WHEREAS, the City Commission wished to find another approach to management of off-street parking; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2018, the City Commission issued a moratorium on the execution of new agreements or paying of fees dues pursuant to existing parking space fee agreements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on March 12, 2019 and voted two (2) ayes to three (3) nays to recommend approval of the proposed text changes thereby causing the motion to fail; and WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to adopt the amendments to the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed Code amendments advance and implement Comprehensive Plan Policy FLU 2.1.4 of the Future Land Use Element and Policies TRA 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 of the Transportation Element related to parking in the Hometown District and are in compliance with Section 20-5.7 of the City's Land Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and as the legislative intent of this Ordinance. Page 1 Ordinance No. 1 1-19-2324 Section 2. The City's Land Development Code Section 20-7.6 Parking is hereby amended as follows: (A) Hometown District Parking. Parking in the Hometown District must be developed and managed primarily as an element of infrastructure critical to enhancing South Miami's tax base through economic success of the district. Properties in the Hometown District are not subject to the minimum parking standards of Sec. 20-4.4(B). establishe by SeGtim-m 2 of the Gede of the Gity of South Miami. Them -Board- shall FepGFt tQ the Gity fees paid inte the Hometown DiStFiGt IFAPFGvement T-r-u-st. Fund, and fGF the allOGation of trust fund paFtial spare !eF;geF than eleven (11) feet shall r--e-untas a full spaGe, (2) The following paFkinq Fed-u-II shall apply te rni.xed- u-se, buildings with twe (2) OF FAG -FA- Of the- (G) Pme*&Fe. I Aed use. The appFGPFqate Fedurt*eR in paFkiRq spares shall then be Ga!GU!ated as pFavid ;n Stantinn 20 7.60 above If the rech-r-tion nalvdated :4 frantinn less than a whole (unadjusted) number of spaGes to d-e-tearminem the a0justed parkin., tei* At 7A� ., ■ Ni .. INN ■- Page 2 Ordinance No. 1 1-1 9-2324 Section 3. The City's Land Development Code Section 20-7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements is hereby amended as follows: 20-7.12 - Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. The Parking Requirements of this Section shall no longer apply to the Hometown District Overlay but shall remain as a parking standard for other zoning districts and it will only apply to those districts that have referred to Section 20-7.12. The uses below are applicable to both new and existing buildings; however, nothing contained herein shall be construed to change the permitted and special uses allowed in those districts outside of the Hometown District: ' . USE TYPE: Unadjusted Parking Requirements: 1 parking space required per: A. Storefront Uses Antique or Curio Shop 300 SF Bakery 300 SF Bank or Savings Institution _-�—� 300 SF I Beauty/Barber Shop or Beauty Spa 300 SF i Bicycle Sales & Services -�— 300 SF I 1 � Book or Stationery Store 300 SF 100 square feet for restaurant Bowling Alley/Restaurant/Entertainment Center 5 spaces for each alley Bus, Machine Sales & Services 300 SF Bus, Transit or Taxi Terminal 400 SF Camera & Photo Supply Store 300 SF Carpeting or Flooring Sales 300 SF Page 3 Ordinance No. 1 1-19-2324 Clothing or Apparel Store (new only) 300 SF Computer Supplies & Services 300 SF I Confectionery or Ice Cream Parlor 150 SF Consumer Electronics or Music Store 300 SF Cosmetics Store 300 SF Dairy Products Store 150 SF Day Care Center 250 SF f Deli 150 SF Department or Dry Goods Store i 400 SF I Drinking Place 100 SF Drug, Pharmacy or Sundry Store 300 SF Dry Cleaning Substation (no processing) I 300 SF Fabric or Drapery Shop 300 SF Film Processing, Retail j 300 SF Florist 300 SF i Fraternal Organization or Private Club 100 SF Gift, Novelty or Souvenir Shop 300 SF Grocery Store 150 SF Hardware Store 300 SF Hobby, Toy or Game Shop 300 SF Page 4 Ordinance No. 1 1-19-2324 Home Furniture or Furnishings Store Household Appliance Store 300 SF 300 SF Inter. Decorator, Showroom/Salesroom 250 SF Jewelry Store 1 300 SF Laundromat 300 SF Lighting Fixtures Store 300 SF Liquor Store 300 SF Luggage or Leather Goods Store 300 SF Mail & Parcel Center 250 SF Messenger or Courier Services 300 SF i Museum, Library or Art Gallery 400 SF i Newsstand 300 SF i Office Supplies 300 SF Opticians or Optical Goods, Showroom f 200 SF Paint, Glass & Wallpaper Store _ 300 SF Pet Sales or Grooming Services 300 SF Photographic Studio u _ 300 SF Physical Fitness Facility 300 SF Picture Framing Store ! 300 SF i Poultry, Meat or Seafood Market j 300 SF Page 5 Ordinance No. 11-19-2324 Restaurant, General or Walk Up* 100 SF devoted to patron use 300 SF devoted to non -patron use Restaurant, Small* 400 SF Sewing/Needlework/Piece Goods Store I 300 SF School* 400 SF Shoe Repair Shop 300 SF I Shoe Store 300 SF Sporting Goods Store 300 SF Tailor or Seamstress 300 SF Tanning Studio , 300 SF i Theater or Cinema 4 seats I Tobacco Shop 300 SF I' Used Merchandise Store: Antiques 300 SF i Used Merchandise Store: Consignment* 300 SF j Variety Store 300 SF Videotape Rental Store 300 SF Watch and Clock Sales & Repair 300 SF i B. Office Uses Page 6 Ordinance No. 1 1-19-2324 Accounting & Auditing Services 250 SF Acupuncturist 200 SF Advertising Agency 250 SF Architectural Services + 250 SF i Beauty/Barber Shop or Beauty Spa 300 SF Building Contractors Office 250 SF i Chiropractic Office or Clinic 200 SF f Counseling Services 250 SF Credit Reporting Services 250 SF ; Dentist Office 200 SF Dry Cleaning Plant* 300 SF I Employment Agency 250 SF Engineering Services Governmental Administration Insurance Agency Interior Designer, Office only 250 SF 250 SF 250 SF 250 SF Investigative Services 250 SF Investment & Tax Counseling 250 SF ; Laboratory: Medical or Dental 200 SF 1 Law Office ! 250 SF Page 7 Ordinance No. 11-19-2324 Loan or Finance Agency 250 5F Market Research Services 250 SF Massage Therapist 200 SF Medical Office ! 200 SF Notary Public 250 SF Office, Business or Professional 250 SF , Opticians or Optical Goods, Office only 200 SF I r Personal Skills Instruction Studio 250 SF Physical Therapist 200 SF Planning & Zoning Consultant 250 SF Public Relations Services ; 250 SF Radio & TV Broadcasting Station i 400 SF Real Estate Agency 250 SF j 1 Reproduction and Stenographic Services 300 SF I Social Services Agency 250 SF ,I Stock Brokerage Services --T 250 SF Telephone Answering Services 300 SF Tutorial Services 300 SF Travel Agency 250 SF (SF refers to gross square feet) Page 8 Ordinance No. 11-19-2324 C. Residential & Lodging Uses Unadjusted Parking Requirements: Dwelling, Townhouse i 2 spaces per dwelling unit** Dwelling, Multi -Family (Efficiency) 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit** Dwelling, Multi -Family (1+ bedrooms) 2 spaces per dwelling unit** i f Hotel 1 space per room + 2 additional USE TYPE. Community Residential Home Adult Congreg. Living Facility* Convalescent Home Unadjusted Parking Requirements: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit ** plus 1 additional parking space required for every 10 units. 1 space per 500 SF Uses marked with an asterisk require a special use permit with city commission approval pursuant to 20-3.3(D) and 20-3.4(B). All other uses are permitted of right. Outdoor dining is permitted of right in special pre -approved areas (see Regulating Plan). In addition to the uses above, monumental civic building uses are encouraged in the Hometown District and in particular for certain strategically located sites. Civic building uses shall include, for example: City, county, state, or federal buildings, including library, post office, meeting hall, administrative offices, performance place, police substation, and similar uses. (D) Planned Unit Developments shall not be permitted in the Hometown District. Section 4. Codification. The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami as amended. Page 9 Ordinance No. 11-19-2324 Section 5. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon enactment. PASSED AND ENACTED this 16th day of A ril, 2019. ATTEST: APPROVED: a& ,� CITY CL kRK MAY R I" Reading: 4/2/19 2"d Reading: 4/16/19 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0 Mayor Stoddard: Yea Vice Mayor Harris: Yea Commissioner Gil: Yea Commissioner Liebman: Yea Commissioner Welsh: Yea Page 10 Agenda item No:12. City Commission Agenda item Report Meeting Date: April 16, 2019 Submitted by: Jane Tompkins Submitting Department: Planning & Zoning Department Item Type: Ordinance Agenda Section: Subject: An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, Section 20-4.4 Off-street parking requirements; Section 20-7.6 Parking; and Section 20-7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. 4/5 (City Manager -Planning Department) Suggested Action: Attachments: Cover Memo Hometown Parking Amendment.docx Ord inance_amending_Hometown_ParkingCArev2.doc Draft PB Regular Meeting Minutes - 03-12-2019.docx People Over Parking.pdf ITE President's message about parking requirements.pdf Covington Town CenterParking Recommendations_.pdf Why More and More Cities Aren't Prioritizing Your Parking Troubles.pdf Great idea Rethinking parking CNU.pdf Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development.pdf Aerial of CBD with parking and Med bonuses highlighted - 08 24.12Jpg MDBR Ad. pdf Miami Herald Ad.pdf CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI South M0'iami OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER THE CITY OF PLEASANT LIVING INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission VIA: Steven Alexander, City Manager FROM: Jane K. Tompkins, AICP, Planning Director Date: April 2, 2019 SUBJECT: An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, Section 20-4.4 Off-street parking requirements; Section 20-7.6 Parking; and Section 20-7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. BACKGROUND: The Land Development Code (LDC) requires property or business owners to provide a minimum amount of parking, typically off-street. The number of spaces required for commercial properties is based on the type of use(s) located on a site and the size of the use or property. For example, most retail uses require one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. Property or business owners who cannot provide the required parking may sign a Parking Space Fee Agreement with the City and pay an annual fee that's based on the number of spaces that are not provided. In the Hometown Overlay District, the annual fee is $1,000 per space. Under these agreements, some businesses pay fees totaling thousands of dollars each year. The City Commission recognized that these fees could cause a burden and wished to find another approach that would be more reasonable, and better match the City's goals for the commercial areas. A six-month moratorium on the execution of agreements and the collection of fees under existing agreements was established on October 16, 2018. The proposed ordinance eliminates the requirement for off-street parking in the Hometown Overlay District, thus removing the need for the agreements and the payment of fees. ANALYSIS: Minimum parking standards cause a number of unintended consequences in terms of economics and urban design. Cities around the country, planners and traffic engineers have been studying these impacts for several years and reevaluating the desirability of minimum standards. Indeed, avoiding these unintended consequences was likely part of the City's motivation for adopting the Hometown Overlay District. The District's intent is "to invigorate 2 Hometown Parking Text Amendment April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 3 the economic and social vitality of South Miami's "main street" business center, distinct from enclosed malls and strip development" through a number of actions, including: (3) Use buildings, arcades, trees, and modifications to street widths, curbs and sidewalks to create a shaded, interesting and safe environment that works for pedestrians as well as for cars. (4) Emphasize the use of incentives such as reduced parking requirements ...to achieve a balance of retail, service, office, and residential uses characteristic of healthy town centers. (5) Implement a parking code that treats parking as an element of public infrastructure in an urban center (instead of a private matter in a strip center) and that recognizes the shared parking benefits of vertically mixed development and the opportunities of an enhanced Metrorail connection. (land Development Code Section 20-7.2 Intent, applicability, boundaries, permitted heights, densities, intensities, and mixed use standards). The economic impacts are two -fold: the actual increase in development costs to provide the parking and the loss of economic opportunity. It's estimated that a space in a surface lot costs upwards of $5,000, while parking garages average around $24,000 per space. These costs are then passed on to the building's occupants in the form of higher rents or sales prices, which decreases the affordability of the residential units. The increased development costs may also be passed on to retail customers in the form of higher prices for the products sold. Meeting minimum parking requirements also represents a loss of economic opportunity. A typical parking space consumes 162 square feet. When the area needed for vehicle circulation is added to this, the area devoted to one space easily equals or surpasses the amount of area required by an office worker (conservatively measured at 250 sf/worker). A 2,400 sf restaurant in the Hometown would be required to provide 16 parking spaces. The area of these spaces alone, 2,592 sf, is greater than the size of the restaurant. The area needed for vehicle circulation could easily add another 1,656 sf or more, thus making the parking lot almost twice the size of the restaurant itself. By reducing the area needed for parking, more jobs or retail space could be added thereby making the development more economically feasible and improving the city's tax base and the local economy. The public realm is also impacted by minimum parking requirements. Structured parking requires a fairly large footprint to accommodate an efficient design; further, several floors of parking are usually required to meet the code requirements. These factors result in larger buildings with bulky parking pedestals and ground floors that typically have limited usable space and are devoid of architectural and pedestrian interest. Similarly, surface parking lots are uninviting to pedestrians and create negative perceptions about the vitality of an area. 3 XT C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@SCODiDAE\@BCL@SCODiDAE.docx Hometown Parking Text Amendment April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On March 12, 2019, the Planning Board's vote to recommend approval of the proposed amendment was two (2) ayes and three (3) nays; therefore, the motion failed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed amendment. Attachments: • Draft Ordinance • Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes Excerpt 4 XT C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@SCODiDAE\@BCL@SCODiDAE.docx tyll'L�]�Yi1�Yrau1LL�1� PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 12, 2019 CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 07:00 P.M. The City of South Miami Code of Ordinances, Section 8A-5, requires that all lobbyists, as defined in that section, must register with the City Clerk before engaging in any lobbying activities and in most cases pay an annual fee of $500.00 and an additional $100 for each additional issue. This applies.3o all persons who are retained with or without compensation to influence any action, decision, recommendation of someone with the city, including the city manager, city attorney, department heads, city personnel, or members of the city commission or members of any city board, concerning a matter that could foreseeobly be address by the city commission or a city board. There are some exceptions and exemptions. The following are not considered to be lobbyist: a representative of a principal at a quasi-judicial hearing, experts who present scientific or technical information at public meetings, representatives of a neighborhood ssoclation without compensation and representatives of a not -for -profit community based organization for the 0Ufpose of requesting a grant who seek to influence without special compensation. Individuals who wish to view or listen to the meeting in its entirety, audio and video versions of the meeting can be found on the city's website (www.southmiamifl.Rov). Call to Order Action: Dr. Philips called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. II. Roll Call Board Members Present Constituting a Quorum: Dr. Sally Philips (Chairperson), Ms. Aracely Alicea (Vice -Chairperson), Mr. Lee Jacobs, Mr. Orlando Borges, and Mr. Jay Miller. Board Members Absent: Mr. Subrata Basu and Mr. Maximo Monterrey. City Staff Present: Ms. Jane Tompkins (Planning Director), and Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator). City Staff Absent: None.._r City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe 111. Administrative Matters Ms. Tompkins informed the Board that staff is requesting that PB-19-006 be deferred until the next regular scheduled Planning Board meeting of Tuesday, April 9, 2019. Ms. Tompkins then provided the Board with an update on the TODD ordinances and TODD rezoning items that were reviewed by the Board at its February 12, 2019 meeting. Next, Ms. Tompkins informed the Board that the 15 Community Redevelopment Agency was moving forward with the creation of a housing study. Last, Ms. Tompkins stated that staff found an error in the February 12, 2019 meeting minutes that would be corrected. IV. Public Hearings 1. PB-19-006 Applicant: Scott Fuhrman An Ordinance vacatingand abandoning Avenue more full described in g � Y a legal description herein su ' c enditions, including the reservation of an g P � g P easement and disclaimi n ng interest to the.Autting property owners. 2. PB-19-007 Applicant: City of South Miami" An Ordinance amending the City of SoLd-fWami's Land Develnt Code, Section 20-4.4 Off-street parking requirements; SectioNSW7.6 Parking; and SectidiRO-7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. Applicant: City of South Miami Mr. Pepe swore in all the witness won the item Ms. Tompkins pr-9 _item to t%soard. Mr. Miller ask-Ndgnr some W6ground o City's and Towns that were studied during the process of develthe digit legislatures. Tompkins stated that the City of Miami has redurJiminat areas City of Coral Gables does not require parking V thei merciO—Wi ess c1_ ict (CBD) that have a floor area ratio (FAR) of r less. Bulew.has come_ eliminated their parking space standards. The rican Planningiationum _A) has a ber of publications out on the topic. Donald Shoup fro LA has performs resei n the topic. Last, the president of the Institute for Traffic Enginwho was pud in laonth's Journal recommended that parking standards be eliminates Mr. Miller askthe.ance was only eliminating the $1000 fee in lieu of providing the required parking won't have an impact on new developments. Ms. Tompkins stated that the proposed once would eliminate parking space requirements for both existing and future development projects in the Hometown District. She then stated that studies have shown that it is in the best interest that developers provide some amount of parking spaces in their projects. Mr. Jacobs asked how the monies that are collected from the parking agreements are used. Ms. Tompkins stated that the money collected goes into a City account that helps pay for the parking services. Mr. Jacobs then asked what the parking services were, to which Ms. Tompkins responded that the City has a contract with a company that manages the parking services. The company maintains the parking meters and issues parking tickets. fl J Mr. Jacobs asked if the City was planning to build a municipal garage. Ms. Tompkins stated that the City already has a municipal garage that is underutilized. A parking count was performed last summer which showed that in the middle of a Wednesday afternoon, the garage was 98%vacant. Mr. Jacobs then asked if there was a parking problem in the Hometown District. Ms. Tompkins responded that what is a parking problem in the Hometown District is actually just perception. Patrons want to park on the street as close as possibleto their destination and will circle the block until the ideal parking space is found, which creates additional traffic. Traffic engineers will recommend that patrons pull into the municipal garage, reducing the traffic congestion. Ms. Tompkins then stated that the draft legislature only addre s the Hometown District because there is a municipal garage and a fair amount of on-str _ ?king available. Areas such as the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) were nQ ded in the legislature because there is no garage or ample supply of on -street parking oval that area. Mr. Miller stated that he had previously spoken to Ms. TompNK the item where she stated that the economic cost of giving up the fee is about $25,000 per y%.Ms. Tompkins then stated that she misspoke on the monetary amount and clarified her stater the Board. Between 2015 — 2016, the total amount billed for the Hometown District was $ _ 90-$40,000 per year. She then gave the appropriate amounts that were collected in 2016 and 20tu Mr. Miller asked if the ordinance would give amnestyto the businesses who didn't paywhile the ordinance was in effect, to which Ms. Tompkins stated that that would be a policy decision forthe City Commission. Mr. Miller stated that the Board should mention to the City Commission that there will be an economic loss that will be created by the draft legislature so that they can figure out how to replace it. Dr. Philips stated that if the buildings in the Hometown District were filled, the City would get that money back in taxes. Also, if the parking restrictions were lifted there would be more business in the Hometown District. Mr. Miller stated that he was under the impression that the draft legislature only removed the parking in lieu of fee. He wasn't aware that the legislature would affect future development projects. Dr. Philips stated that it could but the chances for success would not be good fora project that is developed without some form of parking. Mr. Miller asked if the City wou Id retain the ability to require additional parking fora projectwhen needed or would that ability be lost if the legislature was approved. Ms. Tompkins stated that TODD has the Special Exception process that gives the Commission the ability to review la rge sca le developments and add conditions, but she wasn't sure if a similar process existed in the Hometown District. Mr. Borges stated that he agreed with Mr. Miller concerns overthe loss of the funds, but they can be made up quickly by enforcement of the use of the municipal garage. Ms. Tompkins stated that the City may not be able to perform that type of analysis but there is capacity in the garage. Mr. Borges stated that market pressure will force a developer to add parking to their project, but there aren't any guarantees. 17 Mr. Miller stated that the Board and City Commission's ability to look at projects at 40,000 square feet or greater would still be available in the Hometown District. In clarifying the Board's question, Mr. Pepe stated Board wanted to know if the City Commission had the flexibility to require additional parking once the legislature was passed. Mr. Pepe then responded that because all the parking provisions in the Hometown District would have been removed by the adoption of the legislature, the Commission would not have the ability to require parking. Dr. Philips stated that there is parking in the Hometown District, but patrons find that those spaces are not convenient. Relatively new developments in the CBD have parking spaces. She then stated that the more active transportation and car sharing programs are pushed, the less people will want to park their cars. Mr. Miller stated that he has no problem with the removal of the parking fee but is not comfortable with giving developers the ability to develop a property without any form of parking. The Board should retain some form of ability to require parking- Mr. Jacobs asked if the City has a plan to renovate the municipal gar r maximize its use. Ms. Tompkins stated that the Planning and Zoning department is not invo with logistics of the municipal garage. Those decisions are largely under controf5f the private r of the garage. Mr. Miller stated that if people;don't know the garage is available, all people will see is a more difficult to use South Miami if the parking deteriorates. Ms. Tompkins stated that there may be an opportunity for wayfinding signage to direct more people to the garage, but that's outside of the purview of the Planning and Zoning Department. - s Ms. Alicea asked if there was any movement on the bus?Wss district proposal, because it could bring some level of cohesion in the form of wayfinding signage. She then stated that she wasn't opposed to the elimination of minimum parking requirements, but if the City is looking to push the use of metro, walking and shared parking, its great but that infrastructure also needs to be built. Removing this fee would make sense in the context of a more collective push, but is it being brought up because the commercial business -owners are behind it or is it just being eliminated out of context. Ms. Tompkins responded that the Planning and Zoning Department was not involved in the discussions regarding the business district proposal. She then stated that when the City started working with Calvin Giordano on the Land Development Code (LDC) regulations, parking w cern. Additionally, when the Board was reviewing restaurants via the Special Use permit proce _ barking shortages were quite common which showed some form of support for the removal of tKie parking fee and requirements. Ms. Tompkins then stated that what started this discussion last fall was a couple of restaurants who were facing very large fees, approached a commissioner who was alarmed by their amount and proposed the moratorium. Ms. Alicea asked if the loss in revenue was expected to me made up by the City. Ms. Tompkins then gave a breakdown of the money that was paid through the parking agreements. She then gave a breakdown of how the money is utilized. Mr. Pepe stated that in addition to proposed legislation, the Board could recommend that the City Commission make an amendment to Section 20-5.11 of the LDC, which mentions.the review of parking. The amendment could require that adequate parking be provided, and the change 4 18 could give the Commission the ability require additional parking. The additional amendment might provide protection for the conditions that the Board has suggested. Mr. Miller reiterated that he is comfortable with the removal of the parking space fee. He then proposed that Section 20-7.6(C)(2)(a) of the draft legislation not be removed. By not removing it, new developments will still be required to provide parking for their projects. Mr. Borges asked if the fee could be passed on to the developer, like an upfront impact fee. Mr. Miller stated that the he would recommend that the parking space moratorium be extended so that the draft legislature could be fine-tuned. The Chairperson opened the floor to public comments on PB-19-007 • Mr. Jerry Proctor: Mr. Proctor requested that the Board also consider the removal of Section 20-4.4(A)(3) of the LDC be eliminated in its entirety, which applies to all commercial properties that are outside of the Hometown District. The Chairperson closed the floor to public comments on PB-19-007 Mr. Borges stated that he would -like to add some form of monetary value forthe new construction coming into the City via a tax or one-time fee. Mr. Pepe stated that impact fees cannot be used for this situation. Mr. Borges stated that the City has a tree fund that operates in similar fashion. Does the City have -a parking fund, to which Mr. Pepe stated yes. The ordinance is proposing to remove it from the Hometown District. Mr. Borges asked if there was away to approve the ordinance in such a way that won't touch the existing buildings and require that new developments pay a one-time fee. Dr. Philips stated that there would need to be an amendment to the ordinance that unless we approve with a recommendation that the discussion be brought forward to the City Commission. Ms. Alicea asked if the Hometown District Improvement Trust Fund was the only fund that maintains the Hometown District. She then stated that if it's a matter of changing it to a one-time fee, the ordinance would only need minor changes to that effect. Ms. Tompkins stated that the revenues identified for the Hometown District Improvement Trust Fund were just the parking exceptions and just interest income. Ms. Alicea stated that rather than making it an annual fee, a one-time payment into the Hometown District Improvement Trust Fund could replace the annual parkingfee. Mr. Miller stated that the question proposed by Mr. Proctor is a great question, but it would require further study and economic analysis. He then asked if the Board had anything to say regarding it. Dr. Philips stated that it was a good idea and shouldn't be lost, but it would require a separate ordinance. Mr. Borges asked if the Board had any objection to the proposed change that Ms. Alicea stated earlier. Ms. Alicea restated her change which would be to eliminate both the minimum parking requirement and the annual fee. She then suggested that a one-time fee be paid into a fund iB] similar to Hometown District Improvement Trust Fund for new development projects. It could be combined with the change to the site plan review mentioned by the City Attorney. Mr. Miller asked if the pieces of the ordinance that are struck out are removed, will it be more difficult for the City to hold people accountable for a reasonable parking standard and does the City want to have a parking standard that isn't defined. Mr. Pepe stated that if the standards are eliminated, then the City will have no way of holding people accountable. Mr. Miller asked what happens when the owners of the Winn Dixie property and they don't want to provide parking. Ms. Tompkins stated that the developers. of the Winn Dixie project submitted proposed text changes that reduce the amount of required parking for the project. Some of the changes that they are looking at will require that the development provide a parking analysis from a traffic professional or that one of the model shared parking programs such as the one developed by ULI be used to determine how much parking is required by the development. Mr. Miller asked if they will continue to offer that change if the draft legislation is approved. Ms. Tompkins stated that she wasn't sure and could not answer the question. Ms. Alicea adw if the study determined that there was a shortfall, what would their responsibility be? Woul have to contribute funds towards additional parking? Would they.be able remediate the shortfall? Ms. Tompkins stated that theirtext doesn't allow for remediation. They would need to meet the anticipated minimum parking by either a parking study or the model shared parking program. Mr. Miller if the other municipalities that were studied gave up their fee, did they give up on the minimum parking requirements for future development. He also asked if these municipalities allowed developers to rewrite the parking regulations. Ms. Tompkins stated that she was not sure if the Cities that were -studied had parking fees. She then stated that the City of Coral Gables allowed large developments to create their own parking space standards. Mr. Borges asked if most of the developments coming into the City were mixed use developments, to which Ms. Tompkins stated yes. Mr. Borges then stated that the City is not considering that all the spaces could be used by Winn Dixie during the daytime and then by the residents at night. Mr. Pepe stated that for the City to charge an impact fee, the City would need to show that there is a nexus between what they are building and the existing situation with regards to parking and show that they are the ones overtaxing the system. Motion: Mr. Borges moved to approve PB-19-007 as presented. Dr. Philips seconded the motion. Mr. Jacobs stated that he would like to get the message to the City Commission that signage is needed to get the word out about the Municipal Garage. Dr. Philips stated that the garage signage could be discussed after the vote. Vote: Yes 2, No 3 (Jacobs, Miller, Alicea) Mr. Jacobs: No Mr. Miller: No Dr. Philips: Yes Ms. Alicea: No Mr. Borges: Yes Because the motion failed, the item was not approved by Board. a 20 Mr. Miller suggested that the ordinance be amended. Dr. Philips informed him that the item was already closed and could not be amended. Mr. pepe stated that the prevailing side could bring the item back for discussion. Motion: Ms. Alicea moved to reconsider PB-19-007. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. No further discussion was held on the item. Vote: Yes 4. No 1(Philips) Mr. Jacobs: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Dr. Philips: No Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Borges: Yes The motion passed so the item was reopened for discussion. Mr. Miller proposed that the ordinance be amended to keep Section 20-7.b(C)(2)(a) and amend it to read: New Buildings and the addition of floor area to existing buildings: If there are fewer spaces provided than required the applicant must applyfor and may receive a special exception as per Section 20-7.51 of this chapter and pay into the Hometown District Improvement Trust Fund a fee as set forth below for each space required but not provided. _ Mr. Borges asked what the goal was of his amendment. Mr. Miller stated that he wanted to make sure that future development didn't get a pass on being required to provide parking. After discussing the amendment, Mr. Borges stated that he was fine with the proposed amendment. Motion: Mr. Miller moved to refer PB-19-007 back to City Staff with the condition that existing owners no longer need to pay the $1,000 per parking space fee but retain the City's ability to ask developers to either meet acceptable parking requirements or pay a one-time parking impact fee. Dr. Philips clarified the amendment made by Mr. Miller by stating: New developments shall be required to pay a one-time fee to be determined by the Commission if the anticipated parking needs are not met by the developer. Mr. Miller stated that he agrees with Dr. Philips clarification. Ms. Tompkins asked what anticipated parking demands as determined by the developer? Dr. Philips stated that a study would need to be performed to determine what the adequate amount of parking is. Mr. Pepe stated that if the development doesn't have adequate parking, then it shouldn't be approved. The Commission can be given the ability to require a one-time impact fee when a development isn't providing adequate parking. 21 Mr. Borges stated that it would be best to leave the ordinance as is and let the City Commission decide. Dr. Philips stated that because Mr. Miller's motion isn't succinct enough, it cannot be voted on. Mr. Miller then asked if it was enough for staff to use. Dr. Philips asked what was discussed for the item would go forward to the City Commission. Ms. Tompkins stated that unless the Board approves something with clear direction, the item would go to the City Commission with a recommendation of denial, but the memo would include the discussion that the Board had on the item. Motion: Mr. Borges moved to approve PB-19-007 as p d. Dr. Philips seconded the motion. No further discussion was held on the item. Vote: Yes 2, No 3 (Jacobs. Mill Mr. Jacobs: No Mr. Miller: No Dr. Philips: Yes Ms. Alicea: No Mr. Borges: Yes Because the motion failed, the item was as not approved by Board. Mr. Jacobs asked if the Board will agreethat there isn't adequate signage forthe municipal parking garage. Mr. Pepe stated that a motion could be made regarding the request. Motion: Mr. Jacobs moved to recommend that the City use budgeted funds to improve signage make people aware of the Municipal Parking Garage in the Hometown District. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. No further discussion was held on the item. Vote: Yes 5. No 0 (None) Mr. Borges: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Because the motion passed, the Board's recommendation will be brought forward to the City Commission for discussion. V. Public Comments/New Business The Chairperson opened the floor for public comments and any new business. Public Comments Section a 22 There were no public comments. New Business Section Mr. Borges stated that he likes all the changes that the City is doing with all the rezoning items. He then asked what the City was doing about the RM-8 — RM-18 zoning district to close the gap. Mr. Tompkins stated that the City has retained the services of Calvin Giordano to study the RT districts and propose a new MU district which would be ready later in the spring of 2019. When asked, the new district would be between RT-9 and RM-18. The Chairperson closed the floor to public comments aew business. VI. Approval of the Minutes 1. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutegarpifiruary 12, Ms. Alicea moved to approve the meeting$outes with rrections. otion was seconded by Mr. Borges. —' Vote: Yes 4. No 0 (None) Mr. Jacobs: Yes Mr. Miller: Abstained Dr. Philips: Yes __ Ms. Alicea: Ye&a- Mr. Borges: VII. Future A) Tuesday, VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 P.M. 9 23 People Over Parking 10/20118, 4:34 PM socialpinpoint A place to engage your Community Online engagement with communities (https://w Ssmartadserver.com/click? imgid=2252022SMnsid=8202258&pgid=584791&ckid=0&uii=378121823556042246&acd=1540067041797&pubid=10&tmstp=4030226288&tgt--%24dt%3d1t%3b%24dma American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen About APA Uaboutapa/) Join Uloin/) Log In Ulogin/7 next=/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/) 1, Ustore/cart/) Enter keyword or phi Home U) > Knowledge Center (Iknowledgecenter/) > APA Publications(/publications/) > Planning Magazine Uplanning/) > Planning October 2018 IHTHISISSUE: [People Over Parking People Over Parking Planners are reevaluating parking requirements for affordable housing. Carless in Seattle: Plymouth on First HMI's apartments are now home to some of the city's formerly homeless disabled population. Photo courtesy SM R Nchitects and Plymouth Housing Group. By Jeffrey Spivak Search Like a lot of cities, Minneapolis has experienced the dual trends of rising multifamily rents and dwindling housing affordability. For years it offered the usual carrots of tax incentives and development subsidies for residential projects with affordable units. But three years ago, it tried a different strategy: The city slashed its multifamily parking requirements in certain parts of town. 24 https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 1 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM The usual ratio of one parking space for every one unit was cut in half for larger apartment projects and was eliminated entirely for projects with 50 or fewer units located near high - frequency transit. Lo and behold, the market mostly responded in the exact ways planners had predicted. Apartment developers proposed projects with fewer parking spaces. That lowered the cost of construction. So, such projects began offering rents below the market's established levels. New studio apartments, which typically went for $1,200 per month, were being offered for less than $1,000 per month. "There's definitely a new type of residential unit in the market that we haven't seen much before," says Nick Magrino, a Minneapolis planning commissioner who has researched apartment development trends since the parking code change. "Outside of downtown, there's been a lot of infill development with cheaper, more affordable units." Tinkering with minimum parking requirements is not new. Cities have been fiddling with regulations for decades, sometimes raising them, sometimes lowering them, and sometimes giving variances for specific projects. What's different now is an evolving understanding that urban lifestyles are changing, traditional parking ratios are outdated, and too much supply can be as harmful as too little. So there's a burgeoning movement of municipalities across the U.S. reducing or eliminating parking requirements for certain locales or certain types of development or even citywide. "This would have seemed inconceivablejust a few years ago," says Donald Shoup, FAICP, a Distinguished Research Professor in UCI.As Department of Urban Planning who has studied and written about parking policies for years and is considered the godfather of the current reform movement. (See an article hosed on his new book, Parldng and the City., www 1p annine.org/planning 2018/oct/ ap rkinggnt;dherapyl j tannin¢/2018/oM/�k ngpr cetherapyA.) Carless in Seattle: The mixed use transit oriented development Arispace Mt Baker lofts is located en the Central Link light -rail line. It has bicycle storage and a reserved car -share space, but no parking garage. Photo courtesy SMR Architects and Artspace. Over the past three years, a Minnesota -based smart -growth advocacy organization called Strong Towns has compiled, through crowdsourcing, more than 130 examples of communities across the country addressing or discussing parking minimum reforms. And that list hasn't captured all the cities taking actions. Communities are reforming these regulations in a variety of ways. 25 https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 2 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM Some have ditched parking minimums entirely. Buffalo, New York, in early 2017 became the first U.S. city to completely remove minimum parking requirements citywide, applied to developments of less than 5,000 square feet. Late last year Hartford, Connecticut, went a step further and eliminated parking minimums citywide for all residential developments. Some have targeted their reforms to certain areas or development districts. Lexington, Kentucky, earlier this year scrapped parking requirements in a shopping center corridor to allow the development of new multifamily housing. Spokane, Washington, this past summer eliminated parking requirements for four -plus -unit housing projects in denser parts of the city. Some have tied new policies specifically to spur affordable housing. Seattle this past spring eliminated parking requirements for all nonprofit affordable housing developments in the city, among other provisions. A couple of years ago, Portland, Oregon, waived parking requirements for new developments containing affordable housing near transit. Also in 2016, New York eliminated parking requirements for subsidized and senior housing in large swathes of the city well served by the subway. Even some suburbs are doing it. Santa Monica, California, removed parking requirements entirely last year for new downtown developments as part of a new Downtown Community Plan. And this year, the Washington, D.C., suburban county Prince George's, Maryland, revised its zoning code to significantly reduce parking minimums. "We're trying to create a new model of mobility and not emphasize the car as much as we've done in the past," says David Martin, Santa Monica's director of planning and community development. Building Parking Raises Rent Parking costs a lot to build, and that cost usually ends up raising tenant rents. $5,000: Cost per surface space $25,000: Cost per above -ground garage space $35,000: Cost per below -ground garage space $142: The typical cost renters pay per month for parking +17%: Additional cost of a unit's rent attributed to parking Source: Housing Policy Debate, 2016 Catalysts for change Three primary factors are driving this new reform: 1. CITIES ALREADY HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING. The Research Institute for Housing America, part of the Washington, D.C.-based Mortgage Bankers Association, used satellite imagery and tax records this year to tally parking space totals in different- sized U.S. cities, and determined that outside of New York City, the parking densities per acre far exceeded the population densities. Meanwhile, two different groups — TransForm, which promotes walkable communities in California, and the Chicago -based Center for Neighborhood Technology, a nonprofit sustainable development advocacy group — have both conducted middle -of -the -night surveys of parking usage at apartment projects on the West Coast and in Chicago, respectively. They consistently found one -quarter to one-third of spaces sat empty. The Chicago center concluded "it is critical to 'right size' parking at a level below current public standards." 2. TRANSPORTATION PREFERENCES ARE SHIFTING. A variety of converging trends point to the possibility of fewer cars in the future. Fixed -rail transit lines continue to be developed in more urban centers, and millennials are not driving as much as previous generations. Meanwhile, transportation alternatives are proliferating, from passenger services such as Uber to car -sharing services such as Zipcar. Then there's the potential of driverless cars and the expansion of retail delivery services. 26 https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 3 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM 3. BOTTOM LINE: WE'RE GOING TO NEED MUCH LESS SPACE TO STORE CARS. In fact, Green Street Advisors, a commercial real estate advisory firm, analyzed what it calls the "transportation revolution" — encompassing ride -hailing services, driverless cars, etc. — and estimated that U.S. parking needs could decline by 50 percent or more in the next 30 years. (See "Future -Proof Parking," March: "In the old days, you built an apartment and you expected it needed two cars," says Doug Bibby, president of the National Multifamily Housing Council, an apartment trade association in Washington D.C. "Those parking ratios are outdated and no longer valid in any jurisdiction." Concerns about housing affordability With the U.S. economy reasonably strong and most urban crime rates on a long -terms decline, housing costs have increasingly emerged as a hot -button issue. In Boston University's nationwide Menino Survey of Mayors last year, housing costs were cited as the number one reason residents move away, and more affordable housing was the top -ranked improvement mayors most wanted to see. "It's on the minds of mayors now more than it has been in the past," says Kimble Ratliff, the National Multifamily Housing Council's vice president of government affairs. They're concerned because there's ample evidence of a continued national shortage of affordable housing. The latest "State of the Nation's Housing" report from Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies noted that a decade -long multifamily construction boom has increased total occupied rental units by 21 percent, but mainly at the top end of the market. Total units deemed "affordable" — costing less than 33 percent of median income — have remained basically static during the last decade, while the number of extremely low-income renter households has grown by more than 10 percent. The 2018 report concluded that there is a "tremendous pent-up demand for affordable rental housing:' So as cities have searched for ways to generate more affordable housing, parking has emerged as an easy target. Parking ratios are simple to change, and the process doesn't lead to future cost obligations like subsidies do. That was the approach taken by Seattle this year. "The number one issue facing our city is the lack of housing options and affordability. We're looking to remove any barriers to the supply of housing, and parking is one of them," says Samuel Assefa, the director of Seattle's Office of Planning and Community Development. Living Space versus Parking Space The typical median parking required for a two -bedroom apartment in many large North American cities is more than half the size of the apartment itself. 27 https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 4 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM :................. .............; :.....12._0r....... i 8•.6...... , 1.S PARKING SPACES 2 BEDROOM APARTMENT INCLUDING AISLES 900 FT, 488 PT' Source: Seth Goodman, graphicparking.com. Impacts on housing costs Planners'shifting strategies toward parking are now supported by a growing body of evidence that parking requirements negatively impact multifamily housing, especially affordable projects. In a nutshell, building parking costs a lot, and that cost usually ends up raising tenant rents. Various studies indicate that surface parking lot spaces cost upwards of $5,000 each, while above -ground parking garages average around $25,000 per space and below -ground garages average around $35,000 per space. That can translate into higher rent, particularly in big cities. Two UCLA urban planning professors studied U.S. rental data and reported in the journal Housing Policy Debate in 2016 that garage parking typically costs renter households approximately $142 per month, or an additional 17 percent of a housing units rent. Other studies have found even larger impacts on rents. "That can be a significant burden on lower -income households," says David Garcia, policy director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California -Berkeley. Changing that equation can help produce additional affordable housing. That's a scenario actually playing out in Portland, Oregon. In 2016 the Portland Community Reinvestment btitiatives, a nonprofit developer and manager of low-income housing, began planning a 35-unit senior housing project called Rafoury Court. At the time, Portland's code required providing five parking spaces for the project, and the developer was struggling to find financing. But late that year, the city changed its parking requirements, and Rafoury now only needs to pmvide two spaces. while that change doesn't seem like much, it allowed the development to be totally redesigned. A first -floor parking garage was no longer needed, so the building has been scaled back from five stories to four stories, which led to cost -saving ripple effects. "This has made the project financially feasible," says PCRI's Julia Metz. She adds: "We prefer to build houses for people, not cats. When it comes down to choosing space for people or parking, we're going to choose people." Affordable housing projects, with their lower rent revenue streams, are already challenging to finance. So parking is an increasingly key factor in whether or not a project works financially. But to developers, reducing or removing parking requirements does not mean M https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 5 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM eliminating parking supply. It simply allows developers to decide how many spaces to build based on market and locational demand. "I've had developers say to me,'Hey, I could make this deal work if I only had to build a garage that's one-third smaller,'" says Greg Willett, chief economist of RealPage, a provider of property management software and services. "Any way you can take costs out of the deal is meaningful." APA Housing Initiative: Planning Home By Emily Pasi Planners know better than anyone the critical role that housing plays in our communities, and the severity of the U.S: s housing affordability and availability crisis. Lack of housing choice and affordability hurts people and limits communities' prosperity. To this end, APA is actively working to develop new tools and better planning practices to encourage and deliver more and better housing options for all. Earlier this year, APAs board of directors greenlit Planning Home, an organization -wide, multiyear housing initiative that aims to reshape the way planners, elected officials, decision makers, advocates, and the public use planning to address the nation's housing challenges. Grounded in the philosophy that better tools can get communities the housing people need, APA's Planning Home action agenda is driven by six board -approved principles, which call on policy makers at all levels of government to: • Modernize state planning laws • Reform local codes • Promote inclusive growth strategies • Remove barriers to multifamily housing • Turn NIMBY into YIMBY • Rethink finance Learn what you can do now to advance APNs Planning Home action agenda at E1anniBgHome.com ome _ . Emily Pasi is the public affairs manager at APA. 'The debate is now won' When it comes to utilizing parking to augment planning and development policies, U.S. cities still have a long way to go to catch up to some European counterparts. Zurich, Switzerland; Copenhagen, Denmark; and Hamburg, Germany, have all capped the total number of allowable parking spaces in their cities. Oslo, Norway — where a majority of center -city residents don't own cars — is pursuing plans to remove all parking spaces from that district, to be replaced by installations such as pocket parks and phone -charging street furniture. And last year the largest city in North America, Mexico City, eliminated parking requirements for new developments citywide and instead imposed limits on the number of new spaces allowed, depending on the type and size of building. In the U.S., however, parking is still sacred in many places. Sometimes when parking reductions are proposed for a certain urban district or a specific new development, nearby residents complain it will force new renters to park on their residential streets. Because so many people still own cars, the National Multifamily Housing Council's 20171Kingsley Renter Preferences Report ranked parking as renters' second -most desired community amenity, behind only cell -phone reception. Not surprisingly, then, some places are still demanding more parking, not less. In Boston, for instance, an influx of new residents clamoring for parking in the booming South Boston neighborhood led to zoning code changes in 2016 that require developers to build two-thirds more off-street parking than before. W https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 6 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM Nevertheless, the movement to reduce parking is now widespread, involving big cities and small towns, urban districts and suburban locales, affordable housing and market -rate units. "It's pretty well accepted now that reforming parking minimums is a good way to manage cities," says Tony Jordan, founder of Portlanders for Parking Reform, which has advocated for better parking policies. "The debate is now won:' The lessons for planners are, first, to be open to adjusting parking policies in zoning codes and comprehensive plans and, second, to be flexible in crafting new parking limits depending on the location or desired outcome, such as spurring affordable housing development. "As we update our policies, we as planners need to learn from the past and adjust," says Seattle planning director Assefa. "We constantly need to tweak our policies and face the challenges of what's not necessarily working. More often than not, there's significant space dedicated to the car that is not utilized:' Jeffrey Spivak, a market research director in suburban Kansas City, Missouri, is an award - winning writer specializing in real estate planning, development, and demographic trends. RESOURCES APA Knowledgebase Collection, "Rethinking Off -Street Parking Requirements": www.pla_ nning owl dgebase/parking eg.uirements owl gg_base(parkingrgquirements). Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies' The State of the Nation's Housing 2018: hichs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2018 (hUp:/1�1chs.harvard.edu/state-nations- houseng--=. Center for Neighborhood Technology, "Stalled Out: How Empty Parking Spaces Diminish Neighborhood Affordability:" jtWJbit.ly/2Mr0bES (])ttn:/Lbit. ,yf 2MrObES). Strong Towns keeps track of progress on parking minimum removals across the U.S. hap:ffhot.WC1t86k665600 fhttn://bit. y(2C1t86k665600). Follow Us f(https://www.facebook.com/AmericanPlanningAssociation) (D (https://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanP[anningAssn) V (https://twitter.com/APA_Planning) Membership u(https//instagram.com/americanplannirtgassociation) in (https://www.linkedin.com/company/24456/) Knowledge Center Membership Overview Umembership/) Knowledge Center Overview Uknowledgecenter/) Join as a Planner Ujoin/planners/) APA e-Leaming Uelearning/) Join as a Student Ujoin/students/) Publications Upublications/) Join as a Commissioner Ujoin/commissioners) Planning Advisory Service (/pas/) Join as an Academic Ujoin/academics/) Applied Research (/research/) Join From Outside the U.S. Ujoin/international/) Multimedia Umultimedia/) Membership for Allied Professionals & Citizens (/join/all/)Topic Based Resources (/resources/) Renewal / Reinstatement Umembership/renewal/) APA Library Ulibrary/) Member Directory Umembers/d i rectory/) Frequently Asked Questions Umembership/faq/) Conferences and Meetings Member Dues Ujoin/dues/) Conferences and Meetings Overview Ueventsh Water and Planning Connect Uconference/water/) Policy and Advocacy Conference (/conference/policy/) National Planning Conference Uconference/) Speaker Directory Uevents/speakers/search/) Calendar of Events Uevents/#calendar) Tuesdays at APA Utuesdaysatapa/) Burnham Forum Uburnham/) Contact Log In Us (Boginp Ucustomerservice/) next=/planning/2018/oct/pec Chicago American Planning Association 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601-5927 Phone:312-431-9100 Fax:312-786-6700 Washington, D.C. American Planning Association 103015th St., NW Suite 750 West Washington, DC 20005-1503 Phone: 202-349-1016 Fax:202-872-0643 30 https://planning.org/planning/2018/act/peopleoverparking/ Page 7 of 8 People Over Parking 10/20/18, 4:34 PM AICP Policy and Advocacy AICP Overview Uaicp/ Policy and Advocacy Overview Upolicy/ Why AICP? Uaicp/why/ Legislative Action Center (http://cqrcengage.com/amplan/mainpage) Get Certified! Ucertif cation/ Polity Issues (/po!icy/issues/) Candidate Pilot Program Uaicp/candidate/ Policy and Advocacy Conference (/conference/pol!cy/ Certification Maintenance Ucm/ Planners' Advocacy Network Uadvocacy/ Advanced Specialty Certification Uasc/ Amicus Curiae (/amicus/ AICP Fellows Ufaicp/ Communications Guide (/communicationsguide/) Ethics Uethics/ AICP Commission Uleadership/commission/)Career Center AICP Programs Uaicp/programs/) Career Center Overview Ucareercenter/ Job Seekers Ujobseekers/ Employers (/employers/ Advance Your Career Uadvance/ Choosingthe Planning Profession Uchoosingplanning/ Mentoring at APA Umentoring/ APA Salary Survey Usalary/2016/ Consultants / RFP-RFQ (/consultants/ In Your Community Connect with APA In Your Community Overview (/communityoutreach/)Conned with APA Overview (/connect/) What Is Planning? Uaboutplanning/ About APA Uaboutapa/ Planning Home Uhome/ Volunteering (/volunteering/) Great Places in America Ugreatplaces/) Chapters (/chapters/ National Community Planning Month Uncpm/ Divisions (/divisions/ National Planning Awards Uawards/ Students and New Planners (/students/ Planning Assistance Uplanningassistance/ Awards and Honors Uhonors/ APA Ambassadors (/ambassadors/ Diversity Udiversity/ Elections (/elections/ APA Foundation APA Foundation Overview Ufoundation/ Donate Ufoundation/donate/ Mission Ufoundation/mission/ Priority Initiatives (/foundation/initiatives/ APA Scholarships (/foundation/scholarships/ Disaster Grant Recipients (/foundation/grants/recovery/ Foundation Donors (/foundation/donors/) Foundation Board Ufoundation/board/ ® 2018 APA. All Rights Reserved Uapaataglance/copyright.htm) I Privacy Policy (huPs:HPlanning.org/privacy/) 31 https://planning.org/planning/2018/oct/peopleoverparking/ Page 8 of 8 A COMMUNITY OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONALS 11 R a f� L kk � AIM r abomblank president's message .yam Fer INTEANATIONAE BOARD OF mAEOION International President Bar, Belmme, nal PIOE, AVS (F) ISP Intemaliowl vicePauident Randy MKreurt, P.L. PTOE (F) Immediate Past Imemurinval President A4rhael PSanderson, P.L., PIOL LHDAP(F) Directors Fine l J. stall P.L, PTOE (F) WfYaWl'RMVn MG mw.nm uzA Jeff Riegnet P.E. All PTOE (F) F1Lnmca'F,. ':LaA Scott Nnebel. P.F. i111 KnStIM Sel,aS(Iao.PE.,PTOEfM) sy Kamen Tynan, P.E., PTOE. UED AP SO-C. FNV Sir (F) Karen E. A,ehn, P.L., PTOF(FI Ca1h1 Leong, PC IF) as (ands Onie. P.EaE.. PTOF14) len Meleer, MSc. RE, (M) Donald Oon) I. F.W111.e (PEe, (W), PE-(FI Dale Irl FL. PIOE (Sl -' •P. VSI Daniell. Beaty, AICP(F) .,..wFarm &-0O fidoMembm )n &a.NmAP.E(n 5ewaa,e,e�ycwme rl gongenoem m;mmn Marren Aug; Abbas Mohaddes, P.L(R 1 ,,limeo!Tram mtatrmr Engineers .,, .Jte.org A (utu=i. STIY Jte lournal Rethinking Parking Minimums The inception of parking started in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States as cars were the new status symbol of wealth. There were curves of can lining the curbs of streets, with no rules governing parking. The first parking meter was installed in the United States in 1935 in Oklahoma City, OK. Privately run off-street lots became popular to meet the demand, and parking structures sprung up to provide parking in proximity to surrounding destinations. Over time, parking management has become more complex and rules were needed to add order. City zoning ordinances were introduced which identified BRUCE BELMORE, PING, PTOF, AVS (F) minimum parking requirements, which are typically calculated ITE lnremaoonol President on a base unit, such as required stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space, or stalls per bed at a hospital. Developers were required to conform to the minimum parking requirements before they could develop their land. The minimums, however, result in an over -supply of parking. For example, a small restaurant could require a parking area that is 10 times larger than the footprint of the building. The overbuilding; of parking increases the distance between buildings and impacts the dense, walkable commercial areas that we enjoy. Further, it is estimated that 25 to 30 percent of congestion in a downtown is caused by motorists searching block after block for available parking. There is no such thing as free parking It all comes at some cost. When you go to the grocery store, the cost of parking is included in your purchase. As a first-time homeowner, you may pay an extra $8,000 on the price of a new condo because die cost of the required parking space is buried in the purchase price- Parking minimums make some broad assumptions, including the idea that all homeowners can afford a car, want to pay for a parking stall, and that the at is thew preferred mode of transportation. This works against many other policies a city creates to encourage sustainable development, promote active transportation, and serve low income families. 'Ibis discussion reminds me of the 1970s Joni Mitchell song Big Yellow Taxi in which she famously sings, "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Here are some easy ways to regain a piece of paradise: 1. Eliminate mandatory minimum parking requirements - This elimination will not only give people more say over how they live their lives and use their property, but it's also an important step in developing affordable housing. Buffalo, NY, USA and Hartford, Cr, USA have recently scrapped their minimum parking requirements. 2. Use data, technology, and pricing to manage parking - The District Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, USA uses sensors embedded at metered stalls to mea- sure parking availability, and then pricing is changed based on demand. 3. Help developers and city staff better understand parking demand - ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5lh Edition is set for release and will allow better estimation of puk- ing demand based on a newer, expanded data set and now for different locations including rural, urban/suburban, multi -use sites, and downtown. 4. Promote alternate modes to curb parking demand -Good parking planning goes hand -in -hand with good city policies on transit, as well as cycling and walking. The good news is excess parking can be repurposed at any time, and the land returned to more meaningful community use. A8 of this will help build connectivity and vibrancy into our cities. Bruce Belmore, P.Ert PTOE, AVS (F) 33 I of 1 2/8/2019, 10:28 PM N91SHRINY18ard consulting associates 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 357-7521 FAX: (206) 357-7527 MEMORANDUM To: Covington Team From: Thomas Brennan, Nelson\Nygaard Subject: Covington Downtown Parking Concepts for Zoning Memo This memo recommends interim minimum parking requirements for downtown zones and suggests that the City of Covington phase out minimum parking requirements in code and implement alternative means of managing on and off-street parking for all zones in the downtown area. These include strategies such as (1) imposition of time -limits for on -street parking to ensure availability for shoppers and residents, (2) establishment of residential permit parking zones, and (3) assessment of in -lieu parking fees, which can fund the construction or lease of shared off-street parking in the downtown area. Each of these strategies need only be pursued if and when parking studies indicate that demand for on -street parking exceeds, or is likely to exceed supply in the near future. An appropriate time frame for the elimination of parking minimums would need to be set based on expected market uptake. During the interim period, we recommend that the City pursue alternative parking management strategies (1) through (3) above as appropriate, and establish interim parking requirements of 2 parking space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 1 parking space per 1,500 square feet of residential uses for all zones in the downtown area. These requirements are based on the findings of observations of parking demand in Main Street Districts, cited in Figure 1 below, but should be amended if parking occupancy data for downtown Covington is available or collected. The market types between various zones are not significant enough to justify varying parking requirements for each zone designation, particularly if shared parking opportunities are promoted. To (a) inform the design of alternative parking management strategies, (b) establish interim off-street parking requirements, including maximums for selected areas, consistent with actual observed demand in Covington, (c) identify opportunities for shared parking, and (d) create a baseline for future evaluation and adjustment of policies, we recommend that the City conduct a series of parking occupancy surveys of both on and off-street parking in the downtown area in the near future. Background: Origin of Minimum Parking Requirements Between the 1940s and 1970s, many cities adopted minimum off-street parking requirements with the intent of preventing the parking demand generated by one land use or property from congesting on - street parking and/or reducing accessibility to adjacent properties and land uses. However, minimum 34 off-street parking requirements are an expensive and inefficient way to manage on and off-street parking demand, and produce unwanted side effects that are in direct conflict with the established vision for more pedestrian -oriented and transit -friendly downtowns, such that of Covington. Effects of Minimum Parking Requirements The effects of minimum off-street parking requirements include the following: ■ Reduce streetscape quality. A great street is defined by activity, street -facing windows, and interesting facades. Excessive off-street parking located between buildings can disrupt the quality of such streetscapes. ■ Promote auto traffic. Minimum parking requirements are generally set at a level that assumes everyone drives. This effectively creates unlimited supply which leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone will drive. ■ Reduce development feasibility. For small infill projects and historic building retrofits, parking requirements often make these projects unattractive or infeasible. In some cases, the required parking may not physically fit on to a site; in other cases it may be too expensive to provide. ■ Discourage innovation. Car -sharing, cash incentives, subsidized transit passes, secure bike parking, and carpool/vanpool matching services are proven to reduce driving alone. But if the same amount of parking is still required, there is no incentive to use these programs. ■ Reduce density. Even structured parking takes up physical space that is not available for other uses. Minimum parking requirements reduce the number of units or floor area by 20% or more. Parking often prevents a downtown from achieving the density needed for economic health. ■ Diminish economic vitality. Downtowns depend on pedestrians and a 'park once' system where people park once and walk to various stores for impulse buys. With on -site parking people drive, park, visit their destination, and go home — eliminating street activity and potential customers. ■ Discourage mixed use development. With mixed uses, peak parking times often do not coincide. Minimum parking requirements assume that each use has its own supply of parking, which does not allow mixed -use projects to reduce parking in order to offset higher development costs. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements There are a variety of effective methods for managing on and off-street parking demand, such as: On -street time limits. On -street time limits or parking meters (with revenue devoted to downtown improvements) are effective tools to prioritize the most attractive curb spaces for customers, and ensure that these are not occupied by all -day employee parking. Residential permit parking zones. Residential permit parking controls prioritize curb spaces for residents in neighborhoods. Rather than having separate parking for each development, all uses share a common pool. This can be passed into law in lieu of other requirements. In lieu parking fees. The city can charge and collect a transportation impact fee in lieu of requiring developers to provide off-street parking on site. The fees can be used to build shared public off-street parking or for other transportation improvements. Parking Maximums as a Major Alternative 35 Parking maximums limit parking supply at the site level or across an area. Limits imposed by a district or neighborhood are parking caps. Either type of maximum can be imposed in addition to or instead of parking minimums. Establishing a maximum allowable amount of parking can prevent developers from building excessively large lots, or limit supply based on road capacity or community priorities. Communities looking to increase tax revenue through parking lot redevelopment, improve pedestrian safety, or reduce stormwater runoff and heat island impacts of parking may want to consider parking maximums as a way to achieve those goals. As well, planners can set up parking maximums as transferable parking entitlements, so that the allowed number of parking spaces can be transferred or sold to another development if they are not needed. This allows for area -wide control of parking supply without restricting developments that need more parking. Developments requiring less parking can benefit by selling the rights to their additional spaces. Peer Models Many small municipalities with downtowns want to be more dense, vibrant, and walkable and have concluded that the elimination of minimum parking requirements is essential to achieving their goals: ■ Stuart, FL eliminated all on -site parking requirements, which were preventing developers from renovating existing buildings. After four years, the number of downtown businesses had risen by 348%, and the town was able to lower its tax rate. ■ Greenville, SC has no parking minimums even though the downtown drive alone commute mode split is 99%. This standard has proven successful regardless of the availability of public transit and without requiring that all off-street parking be provided by the City. Several mid -size municipalities have introduced parking maximums in exchange for parking minimums: ■ Eugene, OR introduced maximum parking standards to promote dense mixed -use development. It abolished minimum parking requirements in several districts, which aided historic preservation while also reducing air and water pollution, stormwater run-off, and flooding. Spokane, WA eliminated minimum downtown parking requirements and introduced parking maximums. On certain streets, surface parking is prohibited between the street and buildings, and at least 50% of parking structure frontage must have street -level retail, office, or civic uses. Parking Occupancy Studies In light of these innovative approaches, elimination of parking minimums over time is recommended via an on -street parking occupancy study. An occupancy study will determine current parking demand for existing uses, which allows for setting more sensible requirements. A study will also help to identify opportunities for shared parking in the downtown between existing uses and future uses. For example, instead of requiring each development to include a minimum number of on -site parking spaces regardless of how many people drive, municipalities can provide a common, off -site supply of parking. The following figure summarizes findings gathered from former parking occupancy studies. The parking demand in the four districts varies between 1.6 and 1.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet of non-residential built area —though most cities require 3-4 spaces. Figure 1 36 Mode S lit Occupied 2 or Parking City More Spaces Populati Drove Person Other Worked per 1,000 on Alone Carpool Transit Bicycle 1 Walked Means at Home S .Ft. Chico 59,900 61 % 12% 1 % 11 % 13% 1 % 1 % 1.7 Palo Alto 58,600 80% 9% 4% 3% 3% 1 % 0% 1.9 Santa Monica 84,100 74% 11 % 11 % 1 % 2% 1 % 0% 1.8 Kirkland, A 45,600 77% 12% 4% 0% 2% 1 % 4% 1.6 The results show that even small cities with high drive alone mode splits can accomplish reduced parking minimums based on measured demand — and that most parking minimums are in excess of real demand. Furthermore, this demonstrates that aggregate parking demand within a main street district is often far below the total amount required for each respective property and land use. Based on the above information, parking requirements could be set as 2 parking space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 1 parking space per 1,500 square feet of residential uses. But a parking occupancy study should be performed to confirm the rates are indeed appropriate for your community. 37 Why More and More Cities Aren't Prioritizing Your Parking Troubles Cities are eliminating requirements for new buildings to have parking. by Alan Greenblatt I December 2018 The Over -the -Rhine neighborhood in Cincinnati (Flickr/T'ravis Estell) Over -the -Rhine has been one of the biggest urban success stories of recent years. The neighborhood, which is just north of downtown Cincinnati, was in deep disrepair two decades ago, with thousands of residential units sitting vacant, turning into what amounted to an open-air drug market. Since then, however, city officials, corporations and developers have all taken an interest, sprucing up a historic district slightly larger than the French Quarter in New Orleans and filling it with condos, offices and restaurants. One of the side effects has been parking trouble. The city has responded in an unexpected way, eliminating the requirement that developers provide a minimum number of parking spots for each office or apartment. For years, urbanists have argued that parking minimums create more problems than they solve. The promotion of parking, they argue, encourages unnecessary vehicle ownership and makes infill development more expensive and sometimes impractical. Land that could be put to productive use often sits idle as parking lots, with many of the spaces empty except for a few seasonal periods of peak use, such as the Christmas shopping season. These parking requirements raise costs for developers, who pass them on to occupants. One University of California, Los Angeles study found that, around the country, 700,000 renters who don't have cars are nevertheless paying for parking to the tune of $440 million a year. In response, numerous cities have abolished parking minimums, whether citywide, along transit lines or, as in Cincinnati, in the urban core. Buffalo, N.Y., Indianapolis, Kansas City, 38 Mo., and Seattle have all relaxed what were once strict parking requirements. "It's a regulatory demand, not a market demand," says C.J. Gabbe, a planning professor at Santa Clara University. "Given the opportunity, developers tend to build less parking." In Over -the -Rhine, parking mandates had caused perverse development decisions, with usable buildings sitting vacant because of the cost of adding parking -- or being torn down for lots to satisfy parking requirements for projects located blocks away. Developers of dozens of projects had requested waivers, suggesting the system wasn't working. "[The new rules] make development, especially small business development, a little bit easier," says Philip Denning, a Cincinnati development official. "There's one less box you have to check." The changes were approved by the city council only in September, but already neighborhood associations in other parts of Cincinnati are asking whether parking minimums can be abolished or reduced in their sections of town. Knowing that commercial developments would benefit the most -- and that residents would be mad if they were forever having to circle around to find a space — the city implemented a residential permit parking system for Over - the -Rhine. "I always encourage cities to think about both the off-street and on -street parking requirements," Gabbe says. "If you're reducing the off-street parking requirements, you have to actively manage street parking." Alan Greenblatt I Staff Writer I agreenblatt@governing.com 39 (A PUBLIC SQUARE OVrwblicsquare) POLICY(/PUBLICSQUARE/CATEGORY/POLICY) Great idea: Rethinking parking From coast to coast and in middle America, more sensible parking policies are taking hold and may be the quickest path to urban revitalization. ROBERT STEUTEVILLE (/node/538) ]UN. 5, 2017 r1 Lf'A (httP://www.facebook-com/sharer/shater.php? u=https%3A//www.cn u.org/node/6274&title=G reatY.20i dea%3A%20 Rethin ki ng%20pa rki ng) (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet? status=Great%20idea%3A%20 Rethinkin g%20pa rking%2Bhttps%3A//www.cnu.o rg/node/6274) (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle? mini=l&url=https%3A//www.cn u.org/node/6274&title=Great%20idea%3A%2ORethinki ng%20pa rking&sou rce=https%3A//www.cr O (mailto:? subject=Check%20out%20Great%20 idea%3A%20 Rethin king%20 pa rking&body=https%3A//www.cn u.orgpublicsquare/2017/06/0 idea -rethinking -parking) In celebration of the 25th Congress for the New Urbanism (https.11www.cnu.orglcnU25), Public Square is running the series 25 Great Ideas of the New Urbanism. These ideas have been shaped by new urbanists and continue to influence cities, towns, and suburbs. The series is meant to inspire and challenge those working toward complete communities in the next quarter century. 40 Parking is one of the primary shapers of US communities, and has been for a century. The walkability of a city or town is often determined by how much parking dominates the public realm. New urbanists promoted design solutions to reduce the impact of parking on public spaces and ideas like "park once" and shared parking to create better urban places. Like-minded innovators have taken reform to new levels through market -based parking strategies that allow urban places to flourish. Public Square editor Robert Steuteville interviewed Donald Shoup, UCLA professor and author of The High Cost of Free Parking, and Jeffrey Tomlin, director of strategy for Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, transportation planners and engineers, on how new ways of thinking about parking are transforming the American landscape. Donald Shoup and Jeffrey Tumlin. The Charter of the New Urbanism says that streets should be framed by architecture and landscape design. How does parking help or hinder that concept? Shoup: It depends. On -street parking provides a barrier between the sidewalk and moving traffic. If treated well, curb parking is not the evil that many people think it is. Street trees planted in the parking lane between cars can add to the overall aesthetic of a street. Palo Alto (California) has a very good example of that. On its main street, there'll be two parking spots and then a street tree with a semi- circular curb to protect it from the cars. There are negatives, especially where parking is placed between the sidewalk and the front of a building so that when you're walking along the street, you see a parking lot between you and the front of the store and it's clear that the real customers of the store are drivers, not pedestrians. One of the things that New Urbanism has definitely got right is the park -once strategy. With municipal parking structures, people can park in one location, and then walk around for as long as they're in the district. That's very different from what most cities require, which is usually that every building has to have its own parking on -site. If you go to a restaurant or a store, you can park in their lot. But once you've left, they want you out of their lot and so you have to move your car to your next destination. Park - once structures alleviate this problem, but the structures should be placed behind —not on —the main street. The quality of the off street parking matters too. Wrap the parking structure with active uses, a thin layer of offices, or apartments so that when you walk down the street it doesn't look like the typical concrete -block parking garage. These are the aesthetics of parking. How has parking affected the walkability and the livability of cities and towns over the last five or six decades? Tumlin: Let us celebrate parking for a moment, and how parking drove the marketability of the suburbs. It's easy as urbanists to underestimate the appeal of suburbia, not only today but particularly as it was being invented in the post-war era. The idea of limitless personal mobility is incredibly alluring. 41 The ability to park, in part, drove the invention of a new lifestyle. The mistake that we made was trying to apply the concept of the suburban dream on certain urban places. That we put a one -size -fits -all approach to the automobile and to automobile parking in both contexts, that was the failure. A one-time simple solution for almost any urban planning need fails either the city or the suburbs. Shoup: I'd be a bit more critical. My main criticism does not concern parking itself but parking requirements. I'm not against cars and I'm not against parking. I'm against off-street parking requirements in zoning ordinances which I think have led to pedestrian -free zones in cities. Consider three urban policies to stimulate the demand for cars and fuel. First, separate different land uses. Housing here, jobs there and stores somewhere else. Second, limit density so you have to travel a distance to get from your house to your job and to a store. Third, require ample free parking everywhere, so cars become the natural way to travel everywhere. Free parking in particular enables car travel. With these three policies, cities have reduced the cost of driving and raised the price of everything else to pay for it. It makes the city more drivable but less walkable. I think it's foolish to say that without parking requirements we won't have any parking. If you ask any developer whether they would exclude parking if it wasn't required, they would respond, "That's ridiculous." If drivers paid for the cost to provide parking, we would use cars more rationally. Tumlin: It's also important to look at who had a lot of money to make building the suburban dream. There was broad agreement by the institutions that fund the construction of these places, including all of the conventional real estate finance industry, that minimum parking requirements were a good idea and they still demand a 1970s level of parking regardless of context. How has the thinking on parking in cities and towns changed in the recent decade or two? Tumlin: Every place that bought into this 1970s parking concept has recognized that it has completely failed them. So it's become relatively easy to go into a place to help them retool their regulations for the needs of 2020. Even in suburban contexts. We're working with Mountain View, California, which has realized that their minimum parking requirements were literally driving their traffic congestion problem. Not only has Mountain View been eliminating minimum parking requirements, but it has established very low parking maximums for its suburban office parks as a traffic control mechanism and as a housing affordability tool. Similarly, Mountain View has required that the price of parking be unbundled from the price of not only housing but also commercial leases. They require that new parking be largely shared with other land uses and not restrictive. They're also encouraging that parking be priced, which is pretty radical in a suburban context. Mountain View has realized that parking regulations are a tool for creating specific outcomes, like all regulations. And they've realized that a conventional approach to parking regulations was creating only bad outcomes. Shoup: Planning consultants, like Nelson\Nygaard, have spread the better ideas about parking. Nowadays, consultants have much more to tell cities about how parking affects the city, the economy, and the environment. Cities guided by these firms are looking for successful examples like Mountain View. Expertise has been developed from the successful outcomes of the recent decades. The planners of the 195os didn't impose minimum parking requirements on an unwilling public, they simply gave a veneer of professional expertise to parking requirements. But that expertise really didn't exist. A little over a decade ago, a very big book called The High Cost of Free Parking came out. Don, did you expect this book to have such an impact? How has it changed the conversation? 42 Shoup: When the book came out, half the planning profession thought I was crazy and the other half thought I was daydreaming. Now planners are beginning to think that the ideas were practical and sensible. I can boil the 800 pages down to three bullet points. First, charge the right price for curb parking so there are always one or two open spaces on every block. Second, spend that revenue to pay for added public services on the metered blocks so that the stakeholders benefit from these metered spots. Some cities use the money to provide free wi-fi to everybody on the street. They pressure wash the sidewalks frequently, plant new street trees, and remove graffiti every night. Investing the money back into the metered street creates the political will to charge the right price for on -street parking. And third, remove off-street parking requirements because nobody can say there's a shortage of parking if drivers can always see one or two empty spaces on every block Removing off-street parking requirements can have a big effect, even in the short run, because it allows the adaptive re -use of older buildings. Did that book change your practice, Jeff? Tumlin: Don's ideas very much influenced my career and shaped my practice at Stanford University. When the book came out, we felt we could be bolder in our messaging about aligning community values with regulations and clear about the outcomes we were seeking with our regulations. Can either of you talk about any cool projects that are happening right now in cities or towns that involve parking? Tumlin: I love that cities like Fayetteville, Arkansas, are eliminating all minimum parking requirements. I love that these conversations are happening at every urban scale. That this is not just a coastal phenomenon or urban phenomenon. Everyone has started to recognize the problem, from the design professions to the academics to municipal leadership and even traffic engineers and the financial sector. Specifically, I applaud the work that Seattle did. It used an immense amount of data to help manage parking better through building the right price. Seattle took all of San Francisco's lessons and did the exact same thing, but using its own resources on the cheap and came up with some simple formulas for being able to convert the data that they already had at their parking meters to get their own price right. They were able to spread those concepts far more rapidly than San Francisco, in part because they've gotten the messaging right with their own business community and residents. 43 Fayetteville, Arkansas Shoup: The San Francisco experiment, called SF Park (http://sfparkorg/), started in zon to adjust parking prices in response to parking demand. It is run by some of the most dedicated, hard-working, and talented public servants I had ever met. Other cities including Boston, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Washington DC have started rolling out similar programs. Buffalo eliminated all minimum parking requirements so now their regulation only reads 'No off-street parking is required for any land use.' Setting a maximum number of spaces is nice, but the key thing is remove the minimum requirement. Tumlin: After it eliminated the urban parking minimum and established maximums, San Francisco has changed its approach to transportation impact analysis for new developments. It no longer looks at intersection level of service but instead looks at how many vehicle trips the project generates, measured largely by parking supply. A giant office building in downtown San Francisco that has zero parking limits, it may generate vehicle trips. But because the parking supply downtown is constrained, any new vehicle trips their project generates may end up displacing existing vehicle trips, so the net impact is zero. If a project wants to build parking in San Francisco, it's now required to mitigate its impact on traffic by implementing increasingly tough transportation demand management requirements in exchange for the privilege of building parking. Similarly in Mountain View, when the city eliminated its minimums in the office park area, it established a relatively generous maximum at 2.4 spaces per thousand. But if a project is going to build that many parking spaces, it also needs to demonstrate how it's going to comply with the vehicle trip cap that the city also imposes and ensure that the parking supply matches the intended vehicle trip generation rates. We see parking lots being filled in with buildings downtown. I see this in almost in every city in America. But what about the suburbs? There's still a lot of free parking in the suburbs, still a lot of parldng lots 44 everywhere you see. Are these ideas having an impact outside of cities in the wider metro area? Tumlin: Mountain View is an extremely suburban place and where they've been messing with parking, it's an area that is historically one and two -storey office buildings surrounded by seas of free surface parking. The city of South San Francisco, another suburban office park area, has done similar things for Genentech. They've allowed Genentech to put buildings on existing surface parking. They haven't replaced the parking but instead have invested the money that it would have spent on parking structures on free shuttle services for their employees and paying them not to drive. Increasingly in small-town downtowns, Petaluma (CA) for example, municipalities are deciding that they already have enough parking and they've begun to discourage all new development from building parking in order to meet the walkability goals that support a real small-town main street environment. Shoup: There's a new trend toward converting private parking lots attached to stores into paid public lots. A parking operator enters into an agreement with the owner of the parking lot and proposes that they operate it as a public lot with meters and they split the revenue, but customers can park free. So instead of having empty spaces that yield no income, the owner converts the lot into'shared, paid parking so that anybody can use it as a park -once operation. Tumlin: That's exactly what little downtown Truckee, California, is doing as well with its downtown extension. It's asking that the grocery store and the new performing arts center provide a shared parking pool for all of the surrounding commercial areas, so that they can also maintain a walkable downtown that is a park -once environment. Transportation is changing significantly. There's Uber, Lyft, and other carshares, but there are also automated vehicles on the horizon. How do you see this affecting parking. Tumlin: In San Francisco, Uber and Lyft have had a significant impact on urban parking demands. Within San Francisco, it's always cheaper to take UberPool or Lyft Lines downtown than it is to drive and park there. This is a very hot topic right now for pretty much all of our developer and municipal clients. How should we approach the parking components, a 40-year asset, knowing that at most it's going to have a 10- to 20-year use life? How much parking should we build now, and what do we do with this parking once it's no longer needed? Do we build parking now in ways that allows the building to be adaptable to different uses? One developer has encouraged high ceiling heights and double floors in parking structures to encourage adaptability. Shoup: Uber and Lyft know very well that the highest demand for their services are in areas where the price of parking is high. Therefore, they have often asked me about minimum parking requirements. They realize that minimum parking requirements reduce the demand for transportation network companies (TNCs). If you'd like to see shared automated vehicles succeed, the best way to do this is to reform off- street parking requirements. Removing off-street parking requirements will create much more demand for TNCs and automated vehicles. So it isn't just that these automated vehicles are going to affect parking, but parking affects how fast these automated vehicles will be introduced. Are you seeing improved urban places because people are thinking better or differently about parking? Right now, is this happening in cities all around the country? Shoup: Old Pasadena probably provides the best example. It was a commercial skid row in the 1970s and now it's one of the most popular destinations in southern California. That change occurred because 45 Pasadena effectively removed off street parking requirements, installed parking meters, and spent the revenue for added public services. Parking yields over a million dollars a year for a small business district and they have made it immaculate. On a typical weekend, 30,000 people go there just to walk around. All ages, genders, everything. It's very peaceful with lots of restaurants, and all kinds of people are earning a living where the buildings were previously empty above the ground floor. I can't point to a more astonishingly dramatic change than Old Pasadena. Tumlin: Don's research on Old Pasadena is one of the seminal pieces of research in our field and we still point to it. In every city that has eliminated its minimum parking requirement, I've observed the way in which opportunities for developing little, small infill parcels becomes completely unlocked. Every place from downtown Petaluma, to downtown Santa Monica, to scattered, otherwise completely undevelopable parcels in San Francisco. And now, increasingly, in places like Oakland —which has significantly eliminated minimum parking requirements in the urban parts of the city —are seeing development pencil in a way that would have never been possible before because it was physically impossible, or financially very expensive to meet the minimum parking requirement. The end result is a greater concentration of activity, of retail, of people living downtown that make it much more interesting. Downtowns can now attract better restaurants, more shopping, grocery stores and all the things that otherwise also wouldn't have been able to come there because there simply weren't enough people. Note: CNIJ intern Benjamin Crowther helped to produce this interview and article. !i GREAT IDEAS (/PUBLICSQUARE/107) Robert Steuteville is editor of Public Square: A CNU Journal and senior communications adviser for the Congress for the New Urbanism. (/publicsquare/author/robert-steuteville) Recommended for You Great idea: Great idea: Pedestrian Great Idea: Building Sustainable urbanism shed and the 5- better suburbs (/publicsquare/2017/02/oaabvalk through retrofit ideas -new- (/publicsquare/2017/02/4jbg�square/2017/02/15/gr urbanism- idea -pedestrian- icd�ea-buildding-better- 46 sustainable- shed-and-5-minute- suburbs-through- urbanism) walk) retrofit) ROBERT STEUTEVILLE (/NODE/538) ROBERT STEUTEVILLE (/NODE/538) ROBERT STEUTEVILLE (/NODE/538) 47 4 Comments CNU 4 Login - Q Recommend 2 V Tweet f Share Join the discussion... LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISOUS O? Name Michael Klein • 2 years ago Great parking policy discourse to improve economic vitality! Glad this includes Donald Shoup's core guidance: Sort by Best - 1) Charge the right price for curb parking to yield one or two open spaces per block 2) Parking revenue funds added public service benefits on these blocks (streetscape upgrades and improved maintenance, free wifi, etc.) 3) Remove off-street parking requirements 2 - / - Reply • Share NKe4 Mapes • 2 years ago Fort Collins tried zero requirements and got some very large student -oriented multi family developments in transitional mixed use areas that generated significant spillover into neighborhoods, including some neighborhoods somewhat remote and disconnected from the development. This approval of large developments that exported their parking impacts generated an outcry. Long -timers in neighborhoods were seeing strangers come and park cars, often take out bikes, and leave the cars there in front of people's houses. Also, nearby businesses were seeing new residents parking their cars in the business parking lots. We went back and added requirements back into code. The benefits of zero requirements and paid street parking are clearer in bigger -city truly urban situations. Any comments on this experience? ^ - • Reply • Share NSteven Keller,+ Kelly Mapes - 2 years ago Fort Collins needs to institute timed parking in the spill -over areas, then provide resident parking permits (which should come at a cost). Then the people who are driving from point A to point B, then pulling out a bike to get to point C will ride that bike from point A to point C. 1 .. v . Reply • Share, NHamTech87 - 2 years ago Great interview! Can you post some specific references to this comment by Shoup? I googled the Truckee, CA example but didn't come up with anything. Thanks! 'Shoup: There's a new trend toward converting private parking lots attached to stores into paid public lots. A parking operator enters into an agreement with the owner of the parking lot and proposes that they operate it as a public lot with meters and they split the revenue, but customers can park free. So instead of having empty spaces that yield no income, the owner converts the lot into shared, paid parking so that anybody can use it as a park -once operation.' - Reply - Share, ALSO ON CNU Walking to school, three generations Dragon boundary markers 5 comments • a month ago 2 comments • 3 months ago Chris Cook — I did my graduate thesis on this topic and surveyed waiter chatham — Right On, D! 5th graders regarding their "range" with respect to their home. I also asked parents what factors come into play ... The emperor's new buildings Glenwood Park nears completion 3 comments • a month ago 1 comment • 9 days ago pandora — Couldn't agree more, and for Edinburgh it soon will be Robert Steuteville — Nathan Norris comments on Pro - too late, with a horrendous 'copper spiral' hotel about to Urb:Glenwood Park is a great neighborhood, and it offers many dominate the 18th century New Town to enrich the coffers of ... lessons. A few are noted below:1. Books and Conferences ... ID Subscribe Q Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd D Disqus' Privacy PolicyPrivacy PolicyPrivacy 48 About (pu blicsq uare/a bout) Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/newurbanism) Twitter (https://twitter.com/newurbanism) Public Square: A CNU Journal Congress for the New Urbanism Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 1 of 10 Q W Hello Jane Q maa My APA (/myapa/) Log Out (/logout/) Enter keyword or phrase O MENU Search Bookmark This Page Q My Bookmarks (/myapa/bookmarks) Home (/) > Knowledge Center (/knowledgecenter/) > APA Publications (/publications/) > Planning Magazine (/planning/) > Planning May 2015 IN THIS ISSUE: Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Cities flourish with reduced parking requirements. . By Brian Canepa andjoshua Xarlin-Resnick The cost is invisible to consumers and policy makers, but every developer knows just how much parking requirements figure into any pro forma. Xf, https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1/18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 2 of 10 The minimum requirements in place in most municipalities — one to two spaces per residential unit — add an estimated six to 16 percent to per -unit costs through a combination of construction expenses and the opportunity costs of using a limited development envelope on car storage rather than revenue -generating living space. Requirements for retail uses are often much higher. A recent study by the Transportation Research Board found that parking was oversupplied in mixed use districts by an average of 65 percent, meaning that between four and 10 percent of the added costs — likely much more for nonresidential uses -- are pure waste. Developers and planners in Petaluma, California, can attest to the power of eliminating this form of forced waste. Fifteen years ago, Petaluma's Theatre District was marked by surface parking, vacant lots, and derelict industrial buildings. Planners considered it a prime opportunity to extend and reinvigorate its downtown with a mixed use district anchored by a multiscreen cinema. In the end, easing parking requirements in the area became crucial to making that vision a reality. Instead of forcing the developer, Basin Street Properties, to provide as much as one space per 50 or 100 square feet of bar or restaurant, the city allowed the company to determine how much parking was reasonable. Considering the on -street parking supply in the area and how the project's different uses might have different periods of peak parking demand, the developer settled on one space per 300 square feet across the project. Vin Smith, a planning consultant who represented Basin Street in the planning and entitlement process, says the project would "absolutely not" have penciled out without the city's flexibility on parking. "We easily saved a floor or two of parking garage construction," Smith says. At a price tag of roughly $20,000 per space, that means the reduced parking requirements saved as much as $3 million. Little more than a decade later, it's obvious that the now built -out Theatre District provides a compelling argument for that kind of flexibility. The area is alive on Friday night: Residents are arriving home from work, office workers are heading to happy hour, and people are walking to catch a movie at the 12-screen Boulevard Cinemas, a meal at Bistro 100, or to find something sweet at MoYo's Frozen Yogurt Lounge. Smith, who lives in the area, says the parking supply is well used but not overloaded. 51 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1 /18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 3 of 10 A critical time For the last century or so, cities have been struggling with the paradox of parking: Cars need large amounts of space, but making room for them comes at a direct cost to the vibrancy that makes the people in the cars want to come in the first place. A 2013 study called "The Effects of Urban Fabric Changes on Real Estate Property Tax," by researchers at the University of Connecticut, estimated that Hartford dedicates 15 percent of CBD land area — more than 7.5 million square feet — to parking. If each office worker needs 250 square feet of building space (a conservative estimate), that means the city could accommodate 30,000 additional sorely needed jobs if that land were dedicated to one-story office buildings rather than car -storage space. 52 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrak-e.htm 1 / 18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 4 of 10 The same study estimated that if the amount of land dedicated to surface parking had stayed the same as it was in 1950, the annual loss to government coffers would equal nearly $22 million in Hartford, $6.5 million in nearby New Haven, and $3 million in Arlington, Virginia. The story is doubtless the same in many cities across the country, and the lost economic activity is all the more damaging in an era of tight municipal budgets. Even as the economy recovers from the 2008 financial crisis, every underused parcel in a city's downtown represents a costly missed opportunity. Economic development is a central charge of local elected officials and their appointees, and their strategies often take the form of tax breaks for companies that promise a short-term infusion of jobs. Getting parking right might be a more dependable and longer lasting form of economic development. Consider the examples of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Columbus, Indiana; and Sacramento, California. These three cities — of different sizes, with different development contexts, and in different parts of the country — have each reduced or eliminated off- street parking requirements downtown and in mixed use areas, yielding a range of benefits. In some places, lifting onerous parking requirements has made infill development more financially viable, opening the door to projects that renew derelict buildings or activate what were previously inactive hardscapes or garbage -strewn lots. For others, it has simplified the development process, speeding the pace of revitalization. .In no cases have the reduced requirements led to the parking shortages or economic losses that are frequently feared. Sacramento's sea change Developer Michael Heller says that for years, Sacramento was a large central city with lofty, progressive ideals but conservative parking practices that more or less matched those in the suburbs, where land was plentiful enough to make it easy to surround a building with a sea of parking at a reasonable cost. Where land was much scarcer, the requirements led to either scaled down ambitions or time-consuming, costly, and highly political efforts to waive parking requirements and make projects viable. "On one side of their mouths, everyone at the city was espousing green principles and encouraging transit -oriented development, but on the development -application processing side, you had to deal with this antiquated code," Heller says. "You got pulled in two directions." 53 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1 /18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 5 of 10 All that changed in 2012. The city eliminated parking minimums in its Central Business and Arts and Entertainment districts, reduced minimums in some other parts of the city, and allowed developers to reduce those already lower requirements with programs and facilities that encouraged access by non -auto modes. The changes were rooted in a study that found that even at peak times, between 40 and 65 percent of spaces were unoccupied in five focus areas in central Sacramento. The reforms have led to a sea change in the development process. Under the old regime, most developers found they simply did not have the land to build all the required parking and would instead apply for a waiver. Processing it would take anywhere from four to eight months and often ended up being a "lose -lose situation," says Greg Sandlund, an associate planner for the city who played a key role in the city's parking -requirement overhaul. The planning commission and city council denied just one parking ratio waiver between 2000 and 2010, which meant that "the community got worked up and the development was delayed," even though the parking that was ultimately provided was far lower than the code required. "It became a game that only the sophisticated knew how to play," Heller says. "It wasn't a genuine process and it took a lot of time and money." Today, the city's parking code aligns with the visions espoused in the general plan, allowing planners to simply enter "no planning issues" (that is, no planning problems) on applications for projects that are looking to build the amount of parking developers think is needed to compete in the marketplace. Heller points to two developments to explain how the code update changed his business. In the mid-2000s, his company built the Midtown Art Retail Restaurant Scene, a block -long, mixed use, adaptive -reuse development in a thriving neighborhood just a few blocks east of the California state capitol. Heller says it has 55,000 square feet of retail and office space, which means the parking regulations required roughly 150 dedicated parking spaces on a parcel that was already built lot line to lot line, with no room to add vehicle storage. Heller cobbled together agreements with five small lots near the building to account for some of that parking and had to go to the planning commission to waive the rest of the requirement. The process was "a lot of work" and ultimately delayed the project by several months, he says. Today, Heller is moving forward on another adaptive reuse project about a mile to the southwest, next to a light -rail station, called the Ice Blocks. With 60,000 square feet of office space, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 150 housing units, the project would have required more than 500 parking spaces under the old regulations. 54 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1 /18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 6 of 10 Instead, Heller is providing two spots for every three residential units and minimal parking for the office and retail space, and he will be implementing a robust transportation demand management program to encourage people to come to the site by other modes. The project is moving forward quickly, spared the expense and delays that had been a part of the previous process. "The city really listened to us on this topic and took bold measures to embrace true green principles in the new parking code," Heller says. "I tip my hat to staff on this because the city is now teed up for real growth with a framework for progressive, thoughtful infill projects." Sacramento's development market is still stuck in a post -economic -crisis slump, having built just 200 housing units last year, but Sandlund says that sparing developers from building millions of dollars' worth of unneeded parking has helped move more projects into the pipeline. "I don't think there's been an explosion of development, but if anything, at least the parking code isn't getting in the way of development," Sandlund adds. There is evidence that larger economic impacts are right around the corner. One proposal that entered the pipeline last year was the i15 project, a proposed eight -story mixed use development with 96 residential units, more than 5,000 square feet of ground -floor retail, and zero on -site parking. The regulatory changes have also had a major impact on things like tenant improvements. Whereas transforming a retail space into one suitable for a restaurant, with higher parking requirements, would have required a lengthy trip through the waiver process, such improvements can be made by right today. Columbus kicks the rules to the curb Those unfamiliar with Columbus, Indiana (pop. 45,000), have no reason to suspect this small city would be on the cutting edge of parking policy. But in 2008, it eliminated parking requirements in its downtown district. The change was part of a larger effort to revitalize the area, and its implementation amounted to a "non-event," rooted in a "shared understanding of where downtown was going," says planning director Jeff Bergman, AICP. "There was a feeling at the time that the local government, through the zoning ordinance, didn't have nor really could have enough information to accurately regulate parking downtown, not without potentially causing some sort of negative consequence," he says. Without reliable metrics, the city decided to leave these decisions to the market. 55 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1/18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 7 of 10 Bergman notes that the change has allowed developers and planners to focus on other aspects of projects, instead of getting hung up on whether a project was going to meet its parking requirements. This has led to better developments that reflect the true vision of developers and the needs of their tenants. As an example, Bergman points to a regional headquarters for the First Financial Bank, in the southwest corner of downtown. The combined bank branch and office building development opened in 2014 with 62 surface parking spaces, built to accommodate the anticipated needs of employees traveling to the office for regular meetings. Parking was a non -issue during the development approval process. And the limited parking approach has been successful from the developer's perspective. The Cole, a four-story mixed use residential building across the street, is another development that has gone up since the regulatory change. The project wrapped around a redevelopment authority -sponsored parking garage that was already going up on the same block, and the developer was able to negotiate with the authority to reserve 200 spaces for use by the 146 residential units in the new building. Developer Matt Griffin, who led the effort for the Buckingham Companies, says the Cole shows that eliminating parking requirements does not mean developers will stint on parking. In the case -of the Cole and infill projects in other places, it has simply meant he has had the flexibility to provide only the amount of parking that his company thought was truly needed for the developments to succeed. "Most jurisdictions are coming around to the point that at least for multifamily projects, it's our business, and if we underpark ourselves, we're going to destroy our primary cash flow," Grim says. Ann Arbor at the forefront Although it is near the epicenter of the auto industry, Ann Arbor was an early trendsetter in minimizing the role of parking in the development equation; it eliminated most of its downtown parking requirements in the 1960s. Coupled with a long-standing commitment to building publicly owned and managed structured parking and pricing it at market rates, the lack of requirements laid the groundwork for what is one of Michigan's most vibrant downtowns. Ann Arbor boasts retail occupancy rates that are among the highest in the state and a mere three percent residential vacancy rate. 56 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1/18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 8 of 10 According to the city's zoning code, downtown projects that adhere to the letter of the code are not required to provide any parking, and those that exceed floor -area limits are required to provide just one space per 1,000 square feet of additional floor area, far lower than typical requirements. Susan Pollay, executive director of the city's Downtown Development Authority, says the low requirements have had a direct impact on the city's development environment. "There has been a strategy that from the beginning [eliminated] parking at the heart of our zoning, so we've been able to build a strong downtown core," she says. Over the years, developers have steadily gobbled up surface parking lots for projects. Of late, the focus has been in the area around East Washington and South Division streets. On that corner, Pollay says, a small building surrounded by surface parking was recently replaced by a 10-story residential building with a grocery store and fast- food restaurant on the ground floor and far less parking than zoning codes typically require. Next. door, another residential high rise went up on a lot with a low building and surface parking lot. Across Washington, the McKinley Towne Center filled in its driveway with a new retail building to create a steady, active street front along East Liberty Street. Across downtown, at the corner of Huron and Ashley streets, a recently built mixed use residential high rise with minimal parking will soon be joined by a new hotel that will provide no parking, replacing another low -density development surrounded by a sea of asphalt. There is plenty of parking in a city -owned parking garage down the block. The University of Michigan's tens of thousands of students, faculty, staff, and supporters provide a sizable and steady market for Ann Arbor businesses, which are located close to the campus. But the city shows that the fears that drive policy makers to err on the side of oversupplying parking are largely unfounded. If a tight parking supply really limited an area's economic potential, Ann Arbor businesses would be struggling, university or not. Instead, despite high parking prices and long wait lists for garage permits, the development market could scarcely be hotter. "Apartments are filled to the brim," Pollay says. "If parking was the driving factor, that wouldn't be the case because none of them are providing parking at the rates that would typically be required." An idea spreads 57 hups://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1 /18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 9 of 10 Buffalo, New York, may soon become the next example — and the biggest to date — of what can happen when a city takes parking out of the development -review process. At press time, the city was about to become the first in the country to eliminate parking requirements citywide, in hopes of spurring development on some of its many surface parking lots. The change was part of a zoning code update that was focused on revitalizing the city's downtown, which today contains two parking spaces for every job. City officials saw those parking spaces as a massive opportunity. "People walked around downtown and saw all this surface parking that is ample and underpriced and said, We want development here, we want buildings here,"' says Daniel Hess, an associate professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo who has studied the city's zoning code reform process. That a Rust Belt city like Buffalo has eliminated parking minimums is evidence that we have come a long way in how we think about downtown development. The idea that providing ample parking was the key to economic success has begun to give way to the realization that too much parking can cause economic stagnation. Sacramento, Columbus, Ann Arbor, and, soon, Buffalo are leading examples of how much economic development potential is sitting right under many cities' tires. Brian Can epa is a principal and chiefgrowth offrceratNelson (Nygaard Consulting Associates. Joshua Karlin Resnickis an associate there. They worked on the Sacramento zoning code update and on Petaluma s Theatre District development. RESOURCES Image: The i15 multifamily project, now in Sacramento, California's development pipeline, would never have been proposed for a small infill site if on -site parking had been required. Instead, residents with cars will use an adjacent existing public lot; those without cars will have access to Zipcars two blocks away and public transit just a block away. Rendering courtesy D&S Development Inc. Park(bg Requirementlmpacts on HousiogAffordability, by the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute: www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf) Parking in Mixed -Use Districts, by Rachel Weinberger and Joshua Karlin -Resnick, presented at the 94th annual Transportation Research Board meeting in 2015. 58 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1/18/2019 Releasing the Parking Brake on Economic Development Page 10 of 10 f(https://www.facebook.com/American Plan ningAssociation) (https://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanPlanningAssn) W (https://twitter.com/APA_Planning) w (http://instagram.com/americanplanningassociation) in (https://www.linkedin.com/company/24456/) Back to Top Log Out (/logout/) Contact Us (/customerservice/) Privacy Policy (/apaataglance/privacy.htm) © 2019 APA. All Rights Reserved (/apaataglance/copyright.htm) I Privacy Policy (https:Hplanning.org/privacyh 59 https://planning.org/planning/2015/may/releasingtheparkingbrake.htm 1 /18/2019 � 1 he �. all 60 O .. r . Kl, �, .!ate - s �••� � - L,r MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Dairy except Saturtlay, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Miami -Dade County. Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared GUILLERMO GARCIA, who on oath says that he or she is the DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review We Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade County. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI - APR 16. 2019 in the XXXX Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 04/05/'2019 Afftant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami, in said Miami -Dade County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County, Florida each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement, and smart further says that he or she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any dismount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publicafion in the said GUILLERMO GARCIA personally known to me -' i -i BARSARATHOMAS ' 'r` CDm9lssion#GG121f71 F - Expires November 2, 2021 - Banded TNuTroyFan lnsurande 8007385.7019 c�O UYfl Oy,��rrry L ? r F U • �, 1929 P OR1O CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF -PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearings at its regular City Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 16, 2019, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following items: A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a multi -year contract with Becker 8 Poliakoff, PA for Federal Lobbying Services and related consulting services. An Ordinance pursuant to a request to amend the Official Zoning Map, amending the zoning designation of the property located at 7800 SW 57 Avenue, and as legally described herein, from'RS-3' Residential and'RO' Residential to'LO' Low -Intensity Office. An Ordinance emending the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, Section 20.4.4 Olfstreet parking requirements; Section 20-7.6 Penang; and Section 20-7.12 Permitted and special uses and packing requirements. An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Land Development Code, Chapter 20, Article III, Sections 20-3.4, 20-3.5 and 20-3.6: Article fV, Sections 20-4.3, 20-4.5, and 20.4.5.1; Article V, Sections 20-5.11, 20-5.12, 20-5.13, and 20-5.23; Article VI, 20-6.2.; Article VII, Sections 20- 7.14, 20-7.15, 20-7.22, 20-7.24. 20-7.52: Article WII, Sections 20-8.9 and 20-8.12; Article IX, Section 20-9.5; Article X. Sections Section 20-10.4, 20-10.5 and 20-10.9; Article XI, Section 20-11.9; and to amend the Ciy's Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Section 7-3.1; Chapter 8A, Section BA-1; Chapter 13 Article X, Section 13-85 to amend the powers of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board and to make other revisions. 61 0oth Allow, An Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article I Section 2-2.1(IQ titled 'DECORUM' of the City of South Miami's Code of Ordinances. An Ordinance extending the momtonum on the execution of new parking space fee agreements and the payment of fees pursuant to such existing agreements by businesses in the commercially zoned districts in the City. ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard. For further information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at: 305-663-6340. Nkenga A. Payne, CMC City Clerk Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public that H a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he or she "A need a record of the proceedings. and that for such purpose, affected person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 4/5 19-121/0000392035M 62 30SE NEIGHBORS SUNDAY APRIL 72019 MIAMINL9ALD00M The Place to Shop for Every Occasion Personal service is our specialty • Bridal Gowns • Mother of the bride and Groom • Social Occasion Gowns • Prom, Sweet 15, Bat MRzvah • Social Occasion Attire • Intimate Apparel & Shapewear • Sizes 0-30 • Special Orders Available • Accessories ...... _..... _ _ .................. I....... Monday, Wednesday and Friday: 10am-6pm Tuesday and Thur5dajrt.4 loam-8pm _-..i:jc , 'nP.^worn We're worth the trip! 606 Washington Avenue, Homestead, FL 33030 305.245.0898 AnnMmriesBrldolBoutique.com �, annmariesbridalboutique@gmail.com 1 d .&d6 (;afrzda'a LATIN#3 AMERICAN CAFETERIA - RESTAURANT The same quality & tradition As the latin American of 57th Avenue 1 BREAKFAST SPECIAL {� mi7.NOON M.rdw-Fdday$4.99 DAILY ✓l lam -NOON satweaysundays5.99 LUNCH 2 Fried or Scrambled Egg, n C Ham,aasof rite; age; SPEtrIALJ Noumea o Grits: ,. Toast and Coffee WE CATER Special Prices for Parties! NEW ADMINISTRATION Dwners of 57th Avenue are BACK!! Open 7Am-11gPm 9606 SW 72 Street (Sunset Drive) 305.270.1017 I DISCOUNTS TO: UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS (25%) All motor credit cards accepted - Including Protection! _ CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearings at its regular City Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 16, 2019, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following items: A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a multi- year contract with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. for Federal Lobbying Services and related consulting services. An Ordinance pursuant to a request m amend the Official Zoning Map, amending the zoning designation of the property located at 7800 SW 57 Avenue, and as legally described herein, from "RS-3" Residential and "RO" Residential to "LO" Low -Intensity Office. An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, Section 204.4 Off-street parking requirements; Section 20-7.6 Parking; and Section 20-7.12 Permitted and special uses and parking requirements. An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Land Development Code, Chapter 20, Article 111, Sections 20-3.4, 20-3.5 and 20-3.6; Article IV, Sections 20-4.3. 204.5, and 204.5.1; Article V, Sections 20-5.1 I, 20-5.12, 20-5.13, and 20-5,23; Article VI, 20-6.2.; Article VB, Sections 20-7,14, 20-7,15, 20-7.22, 20-7.24, 20-7.52; Article VIII, Sections 20-8.9 and 20-9.12; Article IX, Section 20-9.5; Article X, Sections Section 20-10.4, 20-10.5 and 20-10.9; Article XI, Section 20-11.9; and to amend the City's Code of Ordinances, Chapter 7, Section 7-3.1; Chapter 8A, Section 8A-1; Chapter 13 Article X, Section 13-85 to amend the powers of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board and to make other revisions. An Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article I Section 2-2.1(K) titled "DECORUM" of the City of South Miami's Code of Ordinances. An Ordinance extending the moratorium on the execution of new parking space fee agreements and the payment of fees pursuant to such existing agreements by businesses in the commercially zoned districts in the City. ALL interested parties arc invited to attend and will be heard. For further information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at: 305-663-6340, Nkenga A. Payne, CMC City Clerk Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he or she will need a meord u( the proceedings, and that for such purpose. affected person may need to ensure that a 63 verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.