Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Off-Street Parking Standards

1,151 views

Published on

Off-Street Parking Standards

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Earn $90/day Working Online. You won't get rich, but it is going to make you some money! ▲▲▲ http://scamcb.com/ezpayjobs/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Off-Street Parking Standards

  1. 1. Agenda Item #5 UDO Amendment 12-7.3 ‘Off-Street Parking Standard’
  2. 2. Off-Street Parking Requirements Presentation Outline • Item from the 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission’s Plan of Work to provide options on creating parking flexibility. • Workshop presentations and policy discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission on parking requirements on: – February 2nd – May 4th – June 1st • On August 3rd, Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommended approval of this Draft Ordinance Amendment to the City’s Off-Street Parking Requirements.
  3. 3. Policy Direction from Planning & Zoning Commission • Provide flexibility and parking alternatives for developing and redeveloping properties to increase their economic development viability and taxable value. • Responsibly reduce regulatory barriers that contribute to underutilized parking areas while still protecting neighborhoods from overflow parking. • Increase the discretion given to Administrator to consider alternative parking options. • Eliminate parking requirements that add minimal value and would streamline staff processes.
  4. 4. Staff Recommendation & Discussion • Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed nine ordinance revision concepts recommended by staff: – Adjust the purpose statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements – Remove the percentage cap of intense uses allowed in shopping centers without requiring additional parking – Change distance eligibility requirements for shared & off-site parking options – Provide relief for small sites by exempting a certain amount of square feet from the requirements. – Improving the demand-based parking option – Adjusting the multi-family parking ratio for 2 bedroom units. – Eliminate “concepts” requirement for large parking lots. – Revisit required curbing around the perimeter of parking areas – Applying redevelopment overlay parking requirements flexibility to all older sites by right.
  5. 5. Ordinance Revision #1: Adjusts the purpose statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements Per Section 12.7.3 in the Unified Development Ordinance : 1. Eliminate Reduce the occurrence of non-resident on-street parking in adjoining neighborhoods; 2. Avoid the traffic congestion & public safety hazards 3. Expedite the movement of traffic on public thoroughfares in a safe manner. 4. Provide flexibility and parking alternatives for developing and redeveloping properties to increase their viability.
  6. 6. Ordinance Revision #2: Allows shopping centers to have a minimum parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking ratios of the tenants that occupy them.
  7. 7. Ordinance Revision #2: Allows shopping centers to have a minimum parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking ratios of the tenants that occupy them. • Removes the rule that no more than 25% of any shopping center square footage shall be utilized for intense uses unless additional parking is provided. • Allows shopping centers to maintain the specified parking ratio regardless of the composing tenant uses unless otherwise determined by the Administrator. – 1 parking space per 250 square feet in General Commercial, Suburban Commercial, and Wellborn Commercial. – 1 parking space per 350 square feet in Commercial Industrial
  8. 8. Ordinance Revision #3: Extends the City’s demand based parking option to all developments and remove the requirement that a balance of land be held in reserve. • College Station’s current Demand Based Parking Option: – Only applies to large-scale developments – Requires that the balance of land that would have been required parking be held in reserve in an undeveloped area. • New Demand Based Parking Options allows commercial and multifamily properties to propose an alternative parking plan based on the demand they generate without requiring that a balance of land be held in reserve. – The reduction in parking spaces would need to be justified with a parking study prepared by a professional engineer or transportation planner. – Final determination would be made by the Administrator.
  9. 9. Ordinance Revision #4: Changes the distance eligibility requirements for shared and off-site parking option from 250 feet to 500 feet. Distance Approximate Time to Walk 250 feet 1 Minute 500 feet 2 Minutes ≈ 250 feet ≈ 500 feet
  10. 10. Change Distance Requirements for Shared Parking Option Distance Approximate Time to Walk 250 feet 1 Minute 500 feet 2 Minutes 750 feet 3 Minutes Approximately 250 feet from building face
  11. 11. Change Distance Requirements for Shared Parking Option Distance Approximate Time to Walk 250 feet 1 Minute 500 feet 2 Minutes 750 feet 3 Minutes Approximately 500 feet from building face
  12. 12. Ordinance Revision #5: Provides relief for small sites by granting a general reduction of two parking spaces for certain non-residential uses • Targeted parking relief for small sites by exempting an amount an floor area from parking requirements – Provides an extra 585 -774 sq. ft. of site flexibility depending on parking configuration (2 parking spaces + associated drive aisle) – Does not apply to tenant spaces in shopping centers – Would require providing at least one parking space unless otherwise specified in the UDO.
  13. 13. Ordinance Revision #6: Eliminates additional layout and landscaping requirements for large parking lots over 120 spaces. • Currently UDO states that large parking lots over 120 parking spaces must choose one of three parking lot concepts which are meant to encourage additional landscaping. • Eliminating this section would reduce regulations and provide flexibility. • The City’s normal parking requirements would now also apply to large sites.
  14. 14. Ordinance Revision #7: Allows curbs in parking areas to be omitted if pedestrian areas are adequately protected • Currently UDO states that all paved surfaces shall be curbed but alternatives can be approved by the Administrator. • There are enough examples of omitted curbs with protected pedestrian areas. • Streamlines processes to allow this by right.
  15. 15. Ordinance Revision #8: Adjusts the Multi-Family Parking Ratio for 2 Bedroom Units Current College Station MF Requirements (Per Bedroom) 16 Peer City Average* Proposed College Station Requirement (Per Bedroom) Efficiency: 1.5 1.2 1.5 1 Bedroom 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 Bedroom: 1.5 1.0 1.0 2 Bedroom where each bedroom is less than 130 s.f. 1.25 N/A Eliminate 3+ Bedroom 1.0 0.8 1.0 • Made up of 10 Texas cities (Austin, Bryan, Conroe, Denton, Georgetown, Missouri City, Plano, San Marcos, Sugarland, & Waco) and 6 other university cities (Norman, OK; Ft. Collins, CO; Columbia, MO; Fayetteville, AR; Tallahassee, FL; Baton Rouge, LA).
  16. 16. Staff Recommendation & Discussion • In summary the ordinance amendments proposed for UDO 12-7.3 would: – Adjust the purpose statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements – Allow shopping centers to have a minimum parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking ratios of the tenants that occupy them. – Extend the City’s demand based parking option to all developments and remove the requirement that a balance of land be held in reserve. – Change the distance eligibility requirements for shared and off-site parking option from 250 feet to 500 feet. – Provide relief for small sites by granting a general reduction of two parking spaces for certain non-residential uses. – Eliminate additional layout and landscaping requirements for large parking lots over 120 spaces. – Allow curbs in parking areas to be omitted if pedestrian areas are adequately protected – Adjust the Multi-Family Parking Ratio for 2 Bedroom Units
  17. 17. Parking Ratios
  18. 18. Alternative Parking Plan • Currently 3 options to choose from – Shared Parking • For multi-use developments with different peak demands or operating hours. • Must be located no further than 250 feet from the building site. – Off-Site Parking • Allows for the location of parking to be at a remote location or separate lot from the principal use. • Must be within 250 feet or a shuttle service be provided. – Bicycle Parking • Allows for the reduction in the number of required spaces if bicycle facilities such as bicycle lockers, employee shower facilities, and dressing areas for employees are provided.
  19. 19. History of Off-Street Parking Downtown Bryan 1931 Photo Credit: Downtown Bryan Association
  20. 20. The High Cost of Free Parking • Landmark planning book written by Donald Schoup, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA in 2005 • “Free parking” is not really free as costs are passed on elsewhere. • Makes the case that policies like parking minimums are a prescription with unintended side effects. • Parking should be market driven by prices.
  21. 21. Current Seating Capacity: 102,512 seats Parking that would be required: 25,628 spaces Would require approximately: 194 acres
  22. 22. Critiques of Parking Minimum Requirements • An obstacle to redevelopment efforts. • Harmful to small scale developments. Makes some smaller lots undevelopable. • Parking lots are aesthetically displeasing. • Private business can better judge value vs. accessibility tradeoffs. • Lowers densities and skews travel choices in favor of driving while making walking, biking, and transit less competitive.
  23. 23. Northgate: Return on Investment
  24. 24. Various City Approaches Regarding Reducing Parking Minimums • Reduce or eliminate parking minimums in certain districts such as their downtown and higher density districts. – (City of San Antonio, TX in Infill Development Zone). • Reduce or eliminate parking minimums citywide (Buffalo, NY; Asheville, NC). • Reduce or eliminated parking requirements for certain property types – Non-residential properties (Fayettville, AR) – Residential properties under a certain number of units (Minneapolis, MN – 50 units) – Buildings less than 2,500 & 10,000 sq. ft. (Providence, RI)

×