Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-09 Planning Commission Regular Work Session PacketAgenda Plan n ing Com m ission Work Se ssion City of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, Decem ber 9, 2020 5:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Pa rking Standards - Industry Best Practices. Presenta tion by Iain Banks of Nelson/Nygard IV.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 'c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: Dec emb er 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: I I I . To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Work S es s io n Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:P arking S tandards - Indus try Bes t P rac tic es . P res entatio n b y Iain Banks of Nels on/Nygard Disc ussio n C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : N o Action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N : P resentation and P lanning C ommission discussion regarding best practices for parking standards and how they might be implemented in E dina. I ain Banks with N elson\N ygaard C onsulting Associates will have a P owerP oint presentation that will be distributed to the planning commission and posted in N ovus Agenda. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Nels on/Nygard Pres entation Graphics Nels on Nygaard Pres entation Nels on Nygaard Document Sustainable Parking Policies ▪City of Edina, MN ▪Planning Commission Iain Banks, Nelson\Nygaard Tom Brown, Nelson\Nygaard Overview Sustainable Parking Policies “Of course there isn’t enough parking. If you gave away free pizza, would you ever have enough pizza?” -Andres Duany Which uses make your urban areas active? Parking Wastes Land 1.13 1.70 1.13 1.13 1.36 3.40 1.13 3.40 1.70 0.44 0.44 2.22 3.10 1.13 0.68 0.67 2.51 0.38 1.13 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Administrative, Business, and Professional Services Shopping Center without Dining Shopping Center with Dining Dining Establishments Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area Dining & Drinking > 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Free- standing Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Mixed-Use Day Care Centers Elementary & Middle School, no assembly High School, no assembly College, no assembly Automotive Rentals Automotive Repair, Bodies Group Care Medical Services: Medical Care Lodging Services: Hotels and Motels Boating and Harbor Activities Recreation Services: Amusement Centers Utility or Equipment Substation Building Sq.Ft.Parking Sq.Ft. If you require more than 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, you’re requiring more parking than land use You Have More Parking than You Think Downtown Portsmouth, NH On-Street Off-Street 330 428 456 463 533 553 287 189 161 154 84 64 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM Vacant Occupied Sustainable Parking Policies Best Practices for a Sustainable Parking Program ▪Price public parking ▪Parking benefit districts ▪Expand access beyond parking ▪Elimination/reduction of parking minimums ▪Promote/require unbundling of parking costs ▪Promote/enable parking cash-out ▪Residential parking permit 8 Phase I: Price Public Parking ▪Establish as formal policy that: –Public parking resources will be priced whenever, and wherever free parking will result in too few available spaces. –Prices will be adjusted based on performance (actual vs. preferred utilization rates). 9 Step 1 –Put it in Writing ▪Codify –Access to public parking will be maintained primarily through pricing ▪Define –Performance Target (about 15% availability) –Frequency of potential rate adjustments –Increment of adjustment –Conditions that will trigger an adjustment: •Availability consistently 5-10 percentage points above or below target (85% for on-street, 85-95% for off-street), •As measured by field conditions surveys to be conducted no less frequently than monthly. 10 11 12 Phase I: Price Public Parking ▪Establish as formal policy that: –Off-street supplies will have to be self- financing. –Rates must reflect cost of maintaining the facility, including any debt service obligations. –No new supply will be built until rates are high enough for user fees to cover its costs. 13 Step 1 –Put it in Writing ▪Many parking authorities operate under this philosophy already. ▪Putting it in writing can help stave off political pressure to do the wrong thing. 14 15 16 17 Step 2 –Define New Paradigm ▪Define proposed paradigm shift ▪Outline its many benefits, most of which directly benefit them: –Parking rates based on performance, not revenue •Easier access for their customers •Particularly those not scared away by a $1 charge for the best spot in downtown. –New revenue will be isolated from general fund. •Spent on local improvements, •As prioritized by local stakeholders –Rates will only go up or down in response to market indicators. •Consumers, not planners or politicians, will determine how much a space is worth. 18 Glendale, CA 19 Step 3 –Bring Merchants Onboard ▪Create Parking Benefit Districts –Famously successful for turning around Old Pasadena, CA –Spend new revenue on local improvements. –This was a big step toward getting meters installed in Ventura, CA 20 Step 4 –Monitor And Adjust 21 Step 4 –Monitor And Adjust 22 Step 5 –Invest to Expand Access Beyond Parking ▪Most cities in MN have plenty of latent demand for some kind of alternate mode: –Bikes: Network improvements, parking facilities, employee benefits, promotional events –Transit: Improved stop amenities, employee benefits, subsidize new, improved service –Pedestrian: Support Park-Once access via improvements to pedestrian networks and general streetscape. ▪In most cases, these investments can expand access for much less than new parking construction ▪They also reduce parking demand, thereby reducing the need to increase parking rates for drivers. 23 24 25 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 1: Stop Mandating Oversupply ▪Eliminate/ Reduce minimum parking requirements –Forcing developers to build more parking than their pro- forma indicates is the best way to ensure that those spaces will be free. –Allow developers to build as little or as much parking as they, and their backers, deem necessary. –If this might lead to too much parking in sensitive areas, consider Maximums. 26 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 2: Directly Promote Pricing by Building Owners ▪Promote or Require Unbundling –Reveals cost of on-site parking to tenants –Tenants have opportunity to save $ by parking less –Developers must ensure a paying market for proposed supply –Works well with parking maximums and shared-parking incentives. Require unbundling only for spaces: •Built in excess of desirable levels •Not shared with off-site users 27 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Private Parking ▪Step 3: Directly Promote Pricing by Employers ▪Promote or Require Parking Cashout –Businesses pass on parking costs to employees/ sub-tenants •Employees drive less •Tenants save $ on unbundled parking. –State of California requires certain employers who provide subsidized employee parking to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space. •Enacted after studies showed cash allowances in lieu of parking encourage employees to find alternate means of commuting to work, such as public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or walking. 28 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 4: Lead by Example 29 Phase III: Manage Spillover 30 Image: Flickr User johnducguz Residential Parking Permits ▪This is a more effective way to protect curb parking for residents. ▪Like meters these have not always been used to their full potential, reducing public confidence ▪Emerging best practices to learn from, including: –Demand-responsive (matching hours and restrictions to address local conditions) –Residential Parking Benefit Districts (Residents park free, others pay, revenue goes to neighborhood improvements) •Austin, Montreal –Variable permit rates (based on demand, number of permits, time of year, etc.) •Arlington County, Canada 31 Discussion & Questions NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011 Parking Standards for Walkable Growth Districts The Long-Standing Challenge: Conventional standards fail to support or leverage several distinct opportunities inherent in mixed-use, walkable growth districts: •Multimodal Access –Opportunities to bring more people to the district in fewer cars •Park-Once Efficiencies –Most who come by car need just one parking space, as spaces are not restricted to any destination, and most/all destinations are a safe, easy walk •Shared Solutions –New parking and mobility investments benefit on-site as well as neighboring uses. •Dynamic Land Uses –Space vacated by one use is quickly filled another, in part because all uses are supported by a shared parking supply that can absorb new parking patterns 2 The Results: Saturday patternsWeekday patterns Scarcity & Abundance: There is more parking than is ever needed at one time, no one has enough parking when they most need it, and all have too much most of the time. 33 Districts end up with a lot more parking and a lot less access. Aggregate demand peak Sum of individual demand peaks 4 And a lot less room (and money) for other things... 5 Walkability is diminished as traffic fills the expanded space between uses. < Conventional Standards vs. District Standards > 6 And, this is what greets most visitors upon arrival. The only current alternative is to grant a variance to waive/reduce parking This is rarely popular, and misses an opportunity to secure alternative forms of developer contributions toward meeting increased demand: •Mobility improvements –So that more of the increased demand may come in the form of walking, cycling, shared mobility, and transit •Shared parking –To provide “overflow” resources that minimize the need to overpark future projects •Funding of public resources –An In Lieu Fee to fund a district program 8 The waiver is not the problem… Waiving or reducing parking requirements is a good thing in these areas, but doing this through a variance, rather than codifying it,: •Creates the perception that developers are “getting deals” that conflict with the greater good. •Creates uncertainty among developers, inserting risk into their decisions to invest time/effort in developing new ideas, plans, proposals •Creates a decision-making process that is shaped by the political processes and popular sentiments of the moment, rather than a long-term vision for what these districts should be and how parking and mobility can best serve that vision. 9 An Added Challenge: Millennials are 25% less likely than those in Gen X to purchase a car. 10 Future Proofing new development in an era of accelerating change. •Parking requirements focus on new off-street facilities. •This means designing around surface lots that quickly consume real estate, or building structures meant to last 50+ years. •But the “future of parking” is not so much about AVs as it is about Uber and scooters, growing demand for walkable urbanism, and COVID. What We Do Know 11 •There will continue to be a steady downward trend in demand for off-street parking, a trend that will be faster and steadier in, but not limited to, multimodal/walkable districts. –This will not eliminate the need for parking, but it will become increasingly IMPOSSIBLE to project just how much parking any new development will need beyond the next few years. •In contrast, demand for curbside space will become more intense and diverse. •Places that emphasize shared, resilient off-street parking resources + strategically managed curbsides will be better able to leverage the benefits and mitigate the issues that will arise from this context. A Simple, Effective Fix Stop requiring parking, and let developers decide how much parking their project will need. 12 Image source: https://www.strongtowns.org/ 13 Ask for contributions to shared solutions, through requirements that can be met via: •Mobility Investments –Identify mobility improvements that can be credited toward a project’s requirement. •Shared Parking –Give more credit to parking that is shared. •Public Parking/Mobility –Allow contributions toward district parking and mobility programs. A New Approach (and always) Complement the Code with Strategic Curbside Management Use pricing where/when demand constrains available supplies •Set rates based on demand •Adjust rates until availability is consistent, modest during peak demand Prioritize high-turnover uses in key locations •Public valet •Pickup/dropoff zones •Shared scooter/bike corrals Protect residential blocks •Resident permit program to manage spillover 14 Putting the New Approach into Practice – Aspen, CO A 2016 Code Update allows developers in the city’s primary CBD to meet parking requirement via their preferred combination of: Cash-in-Lieu Payments –Which the City has used to fund circulator services, bike share, and improved public transit, as well as public parking development. Mobility Commitments –Selected from a menu of capital investments and programmatic/benefit options, provided by the City, each of which contributes “points” toward the requirement. Off-Site Parking –Via a shared-parking agreement. On-Site Parking –With limits on how much can be held in reserve for on-site tenants and visitors. 15 Putting the New Approach into Practice – Aspen, CO This code approach is complemented by a robust program of curbside management practices that includes: Demand-based meter rates on commercial streets, based on regular performance (demand/availability) monitoring and rate adjustments. Resident Permit Parking on nearby residential streets, with a controlled number of daytime permits sold to employees and visitors when residential demand is low. Capacity Optimization via motorcycle spaces, shared-vehicle corrals, and loading zone innovations. 16 Thank You! Iain Banks & Tom Brown ibanks@nelsonnygaard.com tbrown@nelsonnygaard.com Preparing for Autonomous VehiclesParking Reforms You Should Embrace TodayPresented by Patrick SiegmanRailvolutionSeptember 19, 2017 Future 1: Hell We all buy self-driving cars, which drive more and more, often with no one inside Future 2: Heaven Fleets of Autonomous Vehicles that are Electric and SharedPhoto: courtesy of CityCarShare Definition:Minimum parking requirementsare government regulations that specify the minimumnumber of parking spaces that must be provided for every land use.They ensure that cities have more parking spaces than individuals would voluntarily supply. What is the purposeof minimum parking requirements?According to the zoning codes:Palo Alto: “to alleviate traffic congestion”Dallas: “essential to the reduction of congestion in the streets & to the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land.”San Diego: “to reduce traffic congestion & improve air quality”Generally, to prevent spillover parking problems Cruising for parking, 1939The pattern of “cruising for parking” was observed in Chicago by recording the license plate numbers of vehicles that repeatedly passed through a busy intersection during the morning rush hour. Result: no more cruising for parking, more auto capacity…but there were unintended consequencesAn economically illiterate theory for addressing traffic congestion1. Set minimum parking regulations to ensure that virtually all destinations have excess spaces, even when parking is given away free, even at isolated locations with no transit.2. Prohibit or discourage charging for parking.3. Prohibit curb parking.4. Convert curb parking into more traffic lanes.Photo: Dan Burden $40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,000$40,0008Photo: Dan Zack Unintended consequences: less housing, more expensive housing & lower land values1961: Oakland’s first parking requirementOne space per unit for apartmentsConstruction cost increased 18% per unitUnits per acre decreased by 30%Land value fell 33%Source: Shoup, Donald. The High Cost of Free Parking,2005. Minimum Parking Requirements - SourceExample: Office ParksITE Parking GenerationReportPeak Occupancy Rates, in spaces per 1000 sf of building area:Lowest: 0.94 spaces Average: 2.52 spacesHighest: 4.25 spacesTypical requirement:4.0 spaces/1000 sfPhoto: Alex MacLean For more than half a century, cities have been requiring more parking than we need. EFFECT ON PARKING DEMAND?Source EstimateAcademic: Zhang et al ~90% reduction50% of fleet sharedOECD International Transport Forum 80% reduction100% of fleet sharedAcademic: Kockelman Each shared AV replaces 12 private vehiclesMcKinsey 5.7 billion square meter reduction in parkingNow that ride hailing services and autonomous vehicles are here, what will happen to parking demand? Three Reforms1. Charge the right prices for curb parking2. Return the parking revenue to the blocks where it is generated, to pay for public services3. Remove minimum parking requirements Berkeley - goBerkeleyCharge the lowest priceneeded to achieve 65-85% occupancy on each blockCurrently $1.50 - $2.75/hourRevenues fund public services for the blocks where the revenue is collectedSecurityCleaningHelp for the Homeless Image credits: City of Berkeley SDOT (2014) Annual Paid Parking ReportPerformance-Based Pricing at WorkImage: City of Seattle goBerkeley ResultsMost drivers surveyed say “finding parking is easy.” More drivers use formerly underused garages Less circling for underpriced curb parking–693,000 fewervehicle miles of travel/year= 238 trips SF to NYCSource: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2014/12_Dec/Documents/2014-12-16_Item_38_goBerkeley_Pilot_Program.aspx.Image credits: City of Berkeley, Google Maps Residential Parking Benefit DistrictsImplement where neededExisting residents park free or cheaply–Limit permits issued to available curb spaceNon-Residents pay regular parking fees–Revenues fund neighborhood improvements–Payment options: pay by phone, pay stations, meters, or “scratcher” paper permits17Photo credits: Lady Demeter, Keith Kamisugi Residential Parking Benefit District ExamplesLaguna Beach, CARegular parking fees: $1-$3 per hour Resident permit: $40/yearOceanside, CARegular parking fees: $2 / hourResident permit: $100 / yearOther ExamplesVentura, CAWashington DCSanta Cruz, CAWest Hollywood, CAAustin, TXBoulder, CO18Photo credits: Lady Demeter, Keith Kamisugi Communities that have Eliminated Parking Requirementsin some or all neighborhoodsBuffalo, NY (citywide)Coral Gables, FL Eugene, OR Fort Myers, FL Fort Pierce, FL Great Britain (nationwide)Hayward, CALos Angeles, CAMexico City (citywide)Milwaukee, WINashville, TN19Oakland, CAOlympia, WAPortland, ORSacramento, CASan Francisco, CASanta Clarita, CASanta Monica, CASão Paulo, Brazil (citywide)Stuart, FLSeattle, WASpokane, WA Curb parking management solutionsCommercial Frontages Residential FrontagesLoadingEnough for Autonomous VehiclesCharge AV pick-up & drop-off fees?ParkingCharge the right prices for curb parkingReturn the parking revenue to the district to fund public servicesresidentsGrandfather in w/ free or cheap parking permitsresidentsLimit # of parking permits issued to # of curb spaces Charge the right prices for curb parkingCharge the right prices for curb parkingUse of revenuesReturn all parking revenues to the neighborhood to fund public servicesLoading: Charge AV pick-up / drop-off fees? NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2016Patrick Siegman116 New Montgomery StreetSan Francisco CA 94105(415) 284-1544@PatrickSiegmanpsiegman@nelsonnygaard.com