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.

TOD and Parking: Matching the Requirements to the Neighborhood by Jason Wittenberg

2,558 views

Published on

Parking is always a challenge for TOD projects and TOD districts. How do you explain parking requirements and results to commissions, councils and citizens? How do you move forward from the rigid standards in many city codes? Learn a systematic approach for matching parking requirements and transit to different kinds of neighborhoods. Hear how experiments in district-by-district requirements have fared. Explore ways to manage a wide range of parking in a TOD district. Issues, controversy and the consequences of changing parking policy to support TOD -- snag your spot for this lively conversation.

Moderator: Paul Roberts, AICP, Council Member, City of Everett; Board Member, Sound Transit, Everett, Washington
Karina Ricks, AICP, Principal, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Services, Washington, DC
Jason Wittenberg, AICP, Land Use, Design and Preservation Manager, Community Planning & Economic Development, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Meea Kang, President Domus Development, Rail~Volution Board of Directors, Irvine, California

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

TOD and Parking: Matching the Requirements to the Neighborhood by Jason Wittenberg

  1. 1. TOD  and  Parking       Rail~Volu*on  2015     Dallas,  TX  October  26     Jason  Wi>enberg,  AICP   City  of  Minneapolis,  MN    
  2. 2. Twin  Ci/es  Context     •  16th  largest  metro  area  (pop.   3,495,176);  right  between   Sea>le  and  San  Diego  metro   areas   •  15th  largest  transit  system  in   the  U.S.  by  daily  ridership   •  2014   •  Bus  –  80%  of  regional  transit  trips,   67.8  million  rides   •  Rail  –  20%  of  regional  transit  trips,   16.7  million  rides      
  3. 3. Previous  Minneapolis  Parking  Reform   • Substan*al  off-­‐street   parking  revisions   adopted  in  2009;  focused   on  commercial  uses.     • Most  2009  revisions  did   not  change  rules  for   residen*al  development.  
  4. 4. Context  Prior  to  2015  Revisions   • Most  areas:  minimum  of   1  space/residen*al  unit   • Modest  transit  incen*ve:   10%  parking  reduc*on   • No  parking  required  in   downtown  districts  for   any  uses  (since  2009)  
  5. 5. Factors  Influencing  2015  Parking  Reform     Housing   Affordability   Land  Use/   Urban  Design   Transporta*on   Focus:     Housing  in  transit  corridors      
  6. 6. Informal  Advisory  Group   •  City  staff  and  City  Council  office  worked  with  representa*ves   from:     •  Transit  and  bicycle  advocacy  groups   •  Environmental  organiza*ons   •  Metro  Transit   •  City  Planning  Commission   •  Architects     •  Developers   •  Affordable  housing  providers   •  Strong  leadership  from  City  Council  member—the  chairperson   of  the  City’s  Zoning  &  Planning  Commi>ee      
  7. 7. Housing  Affordability     • Construc*ng  parking  is  expensive!     • Construc*on  and  maintenance  costs  are   passed  onto  renters  and  buyers,  including   those  without  vehicles.  
  8. 8. Transporta*on  Policy  Framework     The  Minneapolis  Plan  for  Sustainable   Growth:     “The  City  is  commi>ed  to  a  policy   direc*on  designed  to  reduce  car  use,   and  thereby  moderate  both  vehicle   traffic  and  demand  for  parking.  This   includes  land  use  policies  and   parking  strategies  that  encourage   increased  use  of  transit,  walking,   biking,  and  carpooling.  To  address   parking  and  mobility  issues   comprehensively,  these  strategies   need  to  address  the  supply,   management,  and  demand  for   parking  spaces.”    
  9. 9.   Household  Access  to  Vehicles   Availability  of  Vehicles  in  Minneapolis  Households   No  vehicle  available   18%   1  vehicle  available   42%   2  vehicles  available   31%   3  vehicles  available   6%   4  or  more  vehicles  available   3%   Source:  2013  American  Community  Survey    
  10. 10. Geography  of     Household  Automobile  Ownership  
  11. 11. The  Influence  of  Parking  on  Design    
  12. 12. The  Influence  of  Parking  on  Design    
  13. 13. The  Influence  of  Parking  on  Design    
  14. 14. New  Ordinance     Transit  proximity  and  frequency*   Authorized  reduc8on   from  minimum   parking  requirement   (3  –  50  dwelling  units)   Authorized  reduc8on   from  minimum   parking  requirement   (51  dwelling  units  or   more)   Within   one-­‐quarter   (1/4)   mile   of   a   bus   transit  stop  with  midday  service  headways   of   fiseen   (15)   minutes   or   less,   or   within   one-­‐half  (1/2)  mile  of  a  rail  transit  stop  with   midday   service   headways   of   fiseen   (15)   minutes  or  less   100  percent   50  percent       Within   three   hundred   fisy   (350)   feet   of   a   bus  or  rail  transit  stop  with  midday  service   headways  between  fiseen  (15)  minutes  and   thirty  (30)  minutes     10  percent   10  percent   Table  541-­‐4.5  Transit  Incen/ve  for  Mul/ple-­‐Family  Dwellings *In  addi*on  to  exis*ng  transit  stops,  incen*ves  shall  apply  to  rail  transit  stops  that  are  included   in  a  project  that  has  been  approved  to  enter  the  Project  Development  phase  by  the  Federal   Transit  Administra*on    
  15. 15. Scope  of  New  Ordinance    
  16. 16. Zoning  Districts  in  Affected  Areas  
  17. 17. U*liza*on  of  the  Ordinance     Within  the  First  Several  Months   • 3535  Grand  Ave   • 24  units   • 18  parking  spaces     Parking  variance  was  filed  but  returned   following  ordinance  adop*on.  
  18. 18. U*liza*on  of  the  Ordinance     Within  the  First  Several  Months   • 602  N  1st  St   • 71  units   • 44  parking  spaces   Parking  variance  was  filed  but  returned   following  ordinance  adop*on.  
  19. 19. U*liza*on  of  the  Ordinance     Within  the  First  Several  Months   • 113  E.  26th  St   • 70  units                                 +  ground-­‐floor   commercial   • 46  parking  spaces  
  20. 20. 2015  Timeline     Six-­‐month  process       •  January  30  –  Ordinance  introduc*on     •  May  21  –  Informa*onal  open  house     •  June  15  –  City  Planning  Commission   public  hearing     •  July  10  –  unanimous  City  Council   adop*on     •  July  18  –  Effec*ve  date    
  21. 21. Lessons  Learned   •  Ensure  that  the  policy   framework  is  in  place     •  Iden*fy  and  engage  key   stakeholders   •  Balance  the  desire  to  be   bold  with  whatever  the   poli*cal  reality  might  be  in   your  community         •  Emphasize  range  of   benefits.  Ideally,  policy   framework  already   ar*culates  benefits.              
  22. 22. Addi*onal  Informa*on       Project  web  page   h>p://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/residen*alparkingrevision_2015   …or  Google  “Minneapolis  parking  revisions”       Jason  WiNenberg,  AICP   City  of  Minneapolis   jason.wi>enberg@minneapolismn.gov    

×