Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160621 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 21, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Land Use Code Revisions/Off-Street Parking P1 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 1 of 7 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician CC: Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager Debbi Kirkwood, Parking Programs Manager Meeting Date: June 21, 2016 RE: Land Use Code Revisions – Off-Street Parking and Mobility REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide an update on the off- street parking portion of the land use code work. Consultants from Nelson/Nygaard will be in attendance to present some initial information gathered from the first rounds of feedback, highlight some best practices information, and preview next steps. In addition, staff will present initial information on the public outreach for the entire land use code work. BACKGROUND: City Council has a top ten goal to update the Land Use Code to better reflect that Aspen Area Community Plan. This includes a number of topics, including examining off- street parking and mobility. In March, the Nelson/Nygaard team was selected to assist in the update to the City’s parking requirements. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. are an internationally recognized firm focusing on developing transportation systems that promote vibrant, sustainable, and accessible communities. Nelson/Nygaard specializes in developing parking plans and management programs that have introduced new techniques such as demand-based parking pricing, advanced meters and implementation systems, and revenue-sharing systems; and, they also bring extensive experience in drafting policies, regulatory language, and practical implementation. HISTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING: Off-street parking refers to parking for development that is on individual properties – it does not refer to on-street parking. The City of Aspen Off-Street Parking Requirements were last updated in 2005. The 2005 update overhauled parking requirements in an effort to better meet the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan goals of reducing traffic in town, reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The update made the following changes: • Allowed cash-in-lieu payments to fund mobility enhancements such as car-to-go and in- town transit, rather than just parking. • Allowed cash-in-lieu by right for all properties located south of the Roaring Fork River (the Infill Area) P2 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 2 of 7 • Eliminated parking requirements for multi-family residential and lodging units in the immediate downtown (CC and C-1 zone districts) • Equalized parking requirements based on use type and location o Commercial parking requirements decreased from between 1.5 to 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of net leasable space to between 1 and 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of net leasable space o Lodging parking requirements decreased from between .7 to 1 spaces per lodge bedroom to between .5 and .7 spaces per lodge unit. The City’s off-street parking code requires a minimum number of parking spaces, meaning a new development is required to provide a base number of parking spaces, but can optionally provide as much parking as they would like. In 2012, the City updated the Aspen Area Community Plan, which reaffirmed the community’s long-standing goal of limiting car trips over the Castle Creek Bridge. Then in 2014, the City adopted a new transportation mitigation system through Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, which ensures all new trips are mitigated through Transportation Demand Management (TDM)1 and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)2 improvements. DATA COLLECTION: During Nelson/Nygaard’s initial site visit in April they conducted initial meetings with community members and individuals in the development industry who use the city’s current code on a regular basis. The consultant team is back for a second site visit, which is focused on gathering more generalized feedback on parking and collecting data about parking patterns. Data gathered to date is summarized below. Cost, Value, and Opportunity Cost of Parking. The consultant team has conducted financial analysis of parking costs, value and potential impacts, as well as a high level assessment of the opportunity cost of dedicating potentially buildable land/ building space to off-street parking. Key findings include: 1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the use of alternative transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes. TDM techniques include programs such as compressed workweeks, as well as outreach and education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of TDM programs. Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things like parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their workplace for a cash payment from the employer. 2 Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. LOS A would refer to an area that has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS F would refer to an area where the flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs. Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers into account. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account. P3 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 3 of 7 1. Parking Development Costs, Market Values, and Public Subsidies: The following preliminary findings regarding parking costs, value public subsidies are based on discussions with real-estate technical professionals and consultant research. The consultant team continues to work with City staff to obtain and analyze more information about parking costs and the fiscal impacts of current parking policies. • Off-street parking in the Infill Area is extremely expensive to build. Partially for this reason, neither the private sector or public sector has built much off-street parking in recent years • New off-street parking that has been built is generally located in: o Facilities with a smaller number of spaces which result in inefficient layouts with a high cost per space o Locations that are not always the most accessible/visible for occasional parkers or near areas of highest parking demand • Off-street parking that is publicly-available is increasingly scarce. As a result, the end user parking market (i.e. motorists, or “parking space consumers”) place a relatively high premium on an off-street parking space • However, the real estate market (i.e. building owners and tenants, or “building space consumers”) places a relatively lower premium on off-street parking, as the locational advantages offset/swamp the presence or absence of parking • Considering Aspen’s sustainable transportation and traffic reduction policy goals, one interesting finding is that both off-street and on-street parking is heavily subsidized relative to market value 2. Building-specific Parking Cost & Value (from City data on actual projects) • Looking at 3 recently constructed mixed-use buildings, the team found that the typical mixed-used building in the Infill Area has an average of 26 off-street parking spaces, but with a wide range of 9-47 spaces. • The estimated construction costs for each building parking averaged over $1.5M, ranging from just over $500K to just over $2.8M 3. Building-specific Opportunity Costs. Based on City data for recently constructed projects, the team has found: • Looking at 3 recently constructed mixed-use buildings, the consultant team found that the ground-floor parking in a typical mixed-used building in the Infill Area takes up a significant amount of gross floor area (GFA) which has the potential to displace a significant amount of ground-floor leasable / usable spaces (shops, restaurants, offices, etc). • The estimated average parking square footage as a total gross floor area was 17%, ranging from 11% to 26%. P4 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 4 of 7 4. Building-specific Fiscal Impacts (from City data on actual projects). Looking at 3 recently constructed mixed-use buildings, the consultant team found that the ground-floor parking in a typical mixed-used building in the Infill Area results in significant average and total loss in property tax revenue (from displaced ground floor leasable space). This results in less revenue available for programs to help achieve Aspen policy goals in the areas of sustainable transportation, affordable housing, and quality of life. Issues Identified through Development Practitioners The team will provide an overview of several key issues raised in conversation with development industry professionals during the April site visit. These include: 1. Unrealistic Expectations. There is a common expectation that the private sector should provide all of the off-street parking in Aspen, which is in conflict with limited opportunities for private projects to include cost-effective and efficient parking facilities on-site. 2. High Parking Development Costs. High land costs, construction costs, and opportunity costs make it increasingly expensive (and therefore increasingly unlikely) for the private sector to provide off-street parking in the Infill Area. Land costs are high enough in the Aspen Infill Area that providing off-street surface parking does not typically make financial sense for new development projects, especially given the availability of on- street parking and access alternatives. 3. Development Cost and Site Constraints Limit Efficiency. Off-street parking built by the private sector in the Aspen Infill Area (and some public off-street parking) is typically located in smaller facilities that are relatively inefficient in terms of layout and circulation, and relatively invisible/inaccessible to the public. In many cases, private use restrictions prevent people from parking once, to reach multiple destinations within downtown Aspen on foot. 4. Conflicting Policies Obscure What the City Wants. The current off-street parking requirements and in lieu of parking fee structure for the Infill Area are working at cross purposes, so that neither policy is achieving its intended purpose. In addition, several stakeholders identified a policy conflict between the progressive “TIA mitigations to reduce driving and off-street parking requirements which accommodate driving.” 5. Consensus on Need for Change, But Not on Specific Solutions. There was no consensus among development industry stakeholders about whether the City’s off-street parking requirements were too high, too low, about right, or about how they should be changed. However, most felt they could be reformed and improved. 6. System-wide Inefficiencies. Existing off-street parking facilities (both public and private) are often underutilized, not located in areas of highest demand, and/or not accessible for shared public parking. P5 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 5 of 7 7. On-Street Management Issues. On-street parking management is progressive, but perhaps could be more coordinated with the demand or with the off-street parking system. 8. Intensity of Seasonal Peaks. Visitor parking demand in the Infill Area is highly peaked, with highest demand in the summer season (June-September) when a greater proportion of visitors arrive by car and parking is rarely a problem during the rest of the year. 9. Diversity and Range of Parking Needs/Expectations. Expectations around parking and transportation preferences are different for different user groups. Aspen residents have always been active users of mobility choices like transit, biking, and walking. Increasingly, commuters are using non-auto options, while visitors may demand vehicle storage, but are willing to circulate within town on foot, or otherwise without a private car. 10. Inconsistent On-Street Parking Availability. Congestion of on-street parking sometimes limits parking availability and ease of access; a major concern for business owners and other key development stakeholders who voiced a desire to make Aspen a more welcoming destination for visitors. June Data Collection. To support analysis of current parking patterns in Aspen, and provide an understanding of the multimodal travel profile of visitors to selected sites that were studied during the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) reform process (in 2014), the consultant team with staff assistance will be conducting data collection in Aspen the week of June 20th. This includes collecting parking lot occupancy data at least every two hours all day, at several sites that are representative of the different types of single use and mixed-use buildings in the Aspen Infill Area. Separately, the team will conduct intercept surveys of residents entering and leaving selected sites that were also evaluated during the TIA reform process. June Outreach. To supplement the data collection, there are a number of community meetings to gain feedback on parking. Small Group meetings, open to anyone interested in attending, are being held: • Tuesday, June 21st 8:30-9:30am in Sister Cities, City Hall • Wednesday, June 22nd 3-4pm in the Fire Station Meeting room In addition, the consultant team is meeting with City boards this week to gain their feedback on parking. Supplementing these meetings is the city’s new online platform www.AspenCommunityVoice.com and periodic pop-up workshops around town. In the first 36 hours of our outreach launch there were: Number of Community Members Level and type of engagement 120 Visitors to our website 116 Comments were posted during our Pop Up workshops P6 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 6 of 7 99 Completed street surveys 88 Community members who visited at least one page 46 Community members who visited multiple project pages 16 Community members who provided feedback through online surveys BEST PRACTICES: The Nelson/Nygaard team has also researched best practices in off-street parking codes and management, which will be presented at the work session. Below is a summary of some of the initial research from peer and non-peer communities: • Park City, Utah: o Provision of public off-street parking as the primary source of accessory parking for the Main Street / downtown district, as well as o Coordinated and demand-based management of public on-street and off-street parking in Park City, Utah, including provision of incentives for remote parking (shuttle access to the core). • Bozeman, Montana: o Reduction of off-street parking requirements for affordable housing as part of a local affordable housing strategy. o Joint development of a public parking garage with mixed-use development and a public Transit Center. • Zermatt, Switzerland o Evolution of an auto ban and remote parking/transit access strategies in this picturesque resort town. • Manitou Springs, CO. o Establishment of remote parking and multiple shuttle routes to reduce parking congestion in the core area. Manitou Springs has also recently initiated a permit program. o Seasonal variation in parking regulations and pricing. • Montgomery County, MY o Active management of public (ad-valorem tax funded) parking facilities • Ann Arbor, MI o Shared public parking – including some joint development – and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) funded streetscape enhancements. o Elimination of minimum off-street parking requirements within the DDA District. o Areas still subject to minimum parking requirements can comply by purchasing DDA monthly parking permits. • Columbia-Pike District, Arlington County, Virginia o Form-based code requirements adopted, establishing shared parking district P7 I. 6.21.16 Council Work Session Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion Page 7 of 7 o Soft maximums allow project developers to build more parking than the maximum allowed for each land use on site, provided that all extra parking is made publicly available in perpetuity. NEXT STEPS: Over the next two months, the Nelson/Nygaard team will take the data gathered during the parking counts and community feedback sessions to develop potential code amendment alternatives. Staff anticipates these alternatives will be presented to City Council in late August to early September. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______ P8 I.