Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

State Smart Transportation Initiative and the University of Connecticut found substantial association between increases in a city's parking supply and subsequent increases in car commuting (McCahil12016). Planners are unable to conduct a controlled experiment to test this phenomenon in the real world, but a wealth of evidence suggests that the relief that parking requirements supposedly buy from traffic congestion is temporary at best. A Degraded Built Environment Ask the residents of your community whether they would prefer to spend their time in the city's most walkable district or its largest park- ing lot, and you will hear nearly unanimous acclaim for the former (a few people are born contrarians). Julie Campoli's excellent Made for Walking examines 12 unusually walkable neighborhoods across North America. While these neighborhoods vary in many respects, they share the theme of possessing a limited and carefully managed parking supply. As the author notes, "Rather than feeding auto - dependency, smarter parking policies help initiate a cycle of urban pedestrianism.... Replacing surface lots and street -level garages with homes or businesses improves the qual- ity of the street and encourages trips by bike or on foot." PARKING REFORM IN PRACTICE While many cities have eliminated nonresi- dential minimum off-street parking require- ments in their central business districts, very few have removed parking minimums entirely. For communities contemplating more dra- matic reform, the cities of Champaign, Illinois; Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Buffalo, New York, illustrate three distinct models. Champaign, Illinois The college town of Champaign, Illinois, has seen substantial reinvestment in its core neighborhoods over the past 15 years. Spurred on by growing enrollment at the University of Illinois, Local developers have engaged in a building boom in the high -density residential neighborhood (known as the University Dis- trict) adjacent to campus. At the same time, a greater number of all sorts of residents —grad- uate students, young professionals, empty nesters, and even families —have driven a smaller boom in Champaign's vibrant down- town. With space at a premium and walkability in high demand, developers have frequently The University of Illinois Campus Master Plan shows several potential future buildings (denoted by lighter coloration and anticipated GSF), some of which are sited on existing private land that the University does not currently own. sought (and been granted) relief from the gen- erally applicable parking requirements. Over the same period, Champaign's policy makers have recognized a change in community attitudes toward transportation. Between Zoo() and 2012, nearly a dozen text amendments reduced parking requirements for particular land uses or overlay zones. The Champaign Tomorrow comprehensive plan, adopted in 2o11, acknowledges the importance of balancing the parking sup- ply against other transportation and urban design concerns to enhance walkability in core neighborhoods. With a comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance following on the heels of Champaign Tomorrow and Champaign's minimum parking requirements experiencing death by a thousand cuts, the city's planning staff began to consider the possibility of taking a bold step: eliminating parking requirements in the core neighbor- hoods of the community. A quirk of geography and demography made Champaign's University District an at- tractive test case. Surrounded by railroad tracks to the east, a busy arterial street to the north, and the University of Illinois campus to the east and south, the University District is almost an island of student housing. These barriers largely prevent the commingling of student housing with nearby neighborhoods composed of home owners, a typical source of NIMBY sentiment in many college towns. Furthermore, the University District's robust transit network, its proximity to campus, and the lack of on -campus student parking com- bined to keep daily driving demand among the University District's (mostly student) residents at a minimum. Extensive interviews of Univer- sity District landlords confirmed staff observa- tions that the residential parking supply was experiencing a vacancy rate of approximately 3o percent. At study sessions with the plan commission and city council, elected and ap- pointed officials expressed their openness to further reductions in parking requirements. With no opposition arising from home owners (who were indifferent) or the development ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3