Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

community (which was eager for parking re- form), Champaign staff anticipated smooth passage of a proposal to eliminate all parking requirements within the University District. However, the proposal hit an unexpected speed bump at the plan commission meeting. The University of Illinois sent a representative to the meeting to register the university's op- position. Citing the university's master plan, the university's director of real estate plan-. ning and services expressed concern over the impact the proposal would have on privately held surface parking lots adjacent to campus: "Once this law is eliminated those parking lots will become the hottest commodity in Champaign County for high -density develop- ment. It turns out that some of those that are preserved right now for parking for the private sector are locations where we have proposed future academic buildings" (Champaign zoi5). The commission was unmoved by this tine of dissent, but nevertheless continued the hearing to another date. At that meeting, the university abandoned its original argu- ment, suggesting instead that a tightening of the residential parking supply could lead to overflow and enforcement impacts on the university's parking supply. Staff countered, noting that the university's parking supply is largely controlled by a combination of meters and permits, making it highly unlikely that University District residents would try to use university parking as long-term parking. Ultimately, both the planning commis- sion and city council approved the proposal, and in October zo15 Champaign eliminated parking requirements within the University District. As predicted, a number of student housing developments submitted permit ap- plications shortly afterwards, as developers were waiting to make use of the lower park- ing requirements. These developments all provide parking at different rates, but none of them provides as much parking as was previ- ously required. As the Fall zo17 semester ap- proaches, these developments will be open- ing their doors for the first time. Others are in the pipeline right now. In the meantime, the city expanded parking reform to the nearby Midtown and Downtown areas, eliminating parking requirements in core areas that serve a much less student -oriented population. It is possible —even likely —that some of the developments built in the wake of this reform will find that they have underbuilt or overbuilt their parking supply, and the city plans to The second floor of Fayetteville's Nelson's Crossing Shopping Center sat vacant foryears as it was "underparked."according to the city's parking requirements table. Once nonresidential parking requirements were repealed, businesses could occupy the second floor, improving the development's financial productivity. monitor private parking demand,and pricing over the coming years. Staff anticipates that the findings will show that any concerns were largely unfounded: The market will' value park- ing appropriately for the first time in decades, and Champaign's core neighborhoods will continue to mature into more walkable areas as the effects of a one -size -fits -all parking policy begin to fade. Fayetteville, Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas, is similar to Cham- paign, Illinois, in many ways. Both are college towns with approximately 80,00o residents. Both host a flagship state university. Both rec- ognized a problem with their existing parking regulations. While Champaign has eliminated all parking minimums in select areas, in 2015 Fayetteville eliminated all nonresidential park- ing requirements citywide, leaving parking requirements for residential uses in place. As in Champaign, Fayetteville's parking reform efforts were built on the foundation of a comprehensive plan commitment to reduc- ing automobile dependence. The Fayetteville Downtown Master Plan expanded on this idea, recommending a "Smart Parking" approach including the adoption of shared parking standards and revised minimum parking re- quirements. But change began slowly. While the city amended its downtown parking regu- lations to allow changes in land use without the provision of new parking, new construc- tion and building expansion still triggered the standard parking requirements. A separate amendment allowed bike parking spaces to be substituted for automobile parking spaces. Nevertheless, most projects in downtown Fayetteville (and everywhere else) were still subject to minimum parking requirements. The impetus to completely eliminate nonresidential parking requirements came from the community's commercial real estate brokers. Planning staff noted the frustration many brokers expressed in trying to fill vacant commercial spaces with new uses required to provide more parking than the original use. This issue was not limited to downtown, but extended even into the city's most automo- bile -oriented districts. Noting the constraining effect parking requirements were having on the local economy, staff proposed cutting all nonresidential parking requirements. To the surprise of many, the adop- tion of such sweeping parking reform went relatively smoothly. Fayetteville's planning director, Andrew Garner, AIcP, recounts that staff framed the proposal to tick many boxes for both liberal and conservative community members and elected officials. Parking reform in Fayetteville found bipartisan support in its projected sustainability improvements, reduced burden on small business owners, and individual property rights. While some mild opposition arose, enthusiastic support from several planning commissioners assured passage. Tracy Hoskins, a businessman and developer who sits on the planning commis- sion, acknowledged that while the parking reform experiment might create a few negative ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 4