Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

DEVELOPMENT "A" CURB CUT 60%Of STREET FRO'GAGE OCCUPoD BYGRO2R2D-LEVELUSES. P.VIONG CONREIPLV SCREENED DEVELOPMENT"B" 2 CURB GUTS 11% OF STREET FROM/WE OCCUPIED BY GROUYPLE VEL USES UNSCREiNED PARKING ON AT LEAST WE LEVEL Two projects, one profit margin: A developer expects the same return from either building, butthe one granted parking flexibility presents a much more welcoming face to the street Employ Scenarios and Alternatives Parking requirements have been the law of the land for so long that many people have trouble envisioning how a newly constructed building with little or no parking might func- tion in their city. The local development com- munity can show the impact of parking re- quirements on both the design and finances of a proposed project. !n Champaign, architect Tim Kirkby, AICP, demonstrated to the plan commission how one of his projects would change if parking requirements were eliminated (Champaign 2015). Kirkby presented two alternatives side by side. While both alternatives projected an expected return of7.5 percent, their form and finances differed dramatically. The "required parking" alternative was two stories taller than the "flexible parking" alternative, and was largely lifted up on stilts to accommodate ground -floor parking. In contrast, the "flexible parking" alternative had one fewer curb cut and presented ground -level dwelling units fac- ing the street. Perhaps more compelling was the financial comparison of the two buildings. The cost of building required parking was projected to increase rents by approximately 33 percent! This real -life example of a building that would be made both more attractive and more affordable was very compelling evidence of the wisdom of eliminating parking require- ments in the University District. The development community is already a natural ally of any planner seeking to ease parking requirements, although care must be taken to avoid stirring up legitimate concerns that parking reform is simply a giveaway of the city's regulatory power to enhance the private sector's bottom line. Asking developers to compare "required" and "flexible" parking alternatives that project the same profit mar- gin can mitigate these concerns. Put the Focus on Residents, Not Drivers Many parking reform efforts are stalled by neighboring residents and businesses sound- ing the alarm about parking congestion. Even if these concerns are overblown (as they are in many cases), parking congestion proves to be a difficult ground on which to do battle. Instead, consider shifting the conversation to the positive impact that parking reform has on the wallets of residents. As discussed above, overly burdensome parking requirements raise the cost of con- struction and building maintenance. These costs are tucked into the rent and purchase price of building, needlessly raising the price on every activity conducted within those buildings. Invite concerned neighbors and elected officials to speculate on what it could mean for the city coffers if residents, no longer tied up by unnecessary parking costs, found themselves with a greater disposable income. A common rejoinder to this argument raises the specter that devetopers wilt simply keep rents the same and pocket the cost sav- ings as extra profit. Fortunately, a couple of rebuttals address this line of attack. First, in a competitive housing market tenants will gen- erally select the housing option with greater amenities (including parking) if rent is the same, providing a strong economic incentive for landlords with less parking to lower their rents to remain competitive. Additionally, even if prices do not drop for some reason, it is hard to argue in favor of forcing tenants to waste money on unused parking simply to spite developers and reduce their profits. Fairness arguments can be very power- ful in these situations. Is it good city policy to make people pay for parking they don't use? Depending on the community, appeal- ing to housing affordability can be a power- ful argument. Substitute Local Examples for National Studies The field of parking policy research has pro- duced extensive data about nearly every as- pect of parking, from vacancy rates to supply/ demand models to land consumption. Unfor- tunately, these studies may be of limited use in front of elected officials disinclined to look to national trends for local decisions. Instead,• generate your own local data and examples to create a compelling narrative that parking reform is a unique solution for your unique city's unique problems. In Fayetteville, planners could point to buildings in otherwise busy commercial dis- tricts that were being left vacant due to exces- sive parking requirements. In Buffalo, staff successfully argued that residential parking requirements were excessive in a community where 3o percent of households did not own a single car. In Champaign, questionnaires sent to landlords revealed that most apartment buildings had parking occupancy rates of only 6o to 8o percent, even at reduced rental rates. These findings mirrored numbers from the city's own public parking permits in the area, which had cut rates in an attempt to preserve the 7o percent occupancy rate. In all these cases, the local story told the tale of why park- ing reform was important. Remember, too, that the story does not end upon the successful adoption of new parking regulations. As the built environment changes over the years, consider tracking building permits to see how much parking devetopers are providing. In Champaign, staff projected that most future buildings would likely provide parking at 5o to 75 percent of ZONINGPRACTICE 6,17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6