MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE
FISCAL IMPACT ON MUNICIPAL BUDGETS
PRESENTED FOR: RMLUIMARCH 10, 2016
Presented by Anthony Avery
1768 - 1920• 1768 – The first steam
powered automobile• 1807 – First combustion
engine (hydrogen)• 1884 – First electric vehicle• 1886 – First petrol powered
automobile• 1908 – Model T started
production
1920 - 1945• Motor vehicle technology
rapidly evolved• Reduced prices, the roaring
20’s, and more convenience brought car ownership to the masses
• Congestion necessitated parking meters.– The first parking meter
installed on July 16, 1935 in Oklahoma City
HISTORY OF AUTOMOBILE PARKING
1945 - 2000• Vehicle ownership boomed
– 1.16 vehicles per household in 1969
– 1.89 vehicles per household in 2001
• Parking Minimums– Unclear of when first
minimums were established– Earliest I found for Aurora
was 1969
Peak Driving
HISTORY OF AUTOMOBILE PARKING
Current Standards• Parking minimums have
often been set to match the maximum observed occupancy of free parking
BUSINESS AS USUAL
Vehicles Available Housing Availability
BUSINESS AS USUAL
7.0%
37.6%
38.0%
12.8%
4.7%
Number of Vehicles Available by Household
No vehicle available 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles available 3 vehicles available 4 or more vehicles available
0.9%
16.1%
60.0%
23.0%
Housing Availability by Parking Requirement
1 Car Housing1.5 Car Housing2 Car Housing2.5 Car Housing
Current Standards• Parking minimums have
often bet set to match the maximum observed occupancy of free parking
• This results in excess parking– Minimum required residential
parking spaces in Aurora: 415,229
– Total number of vehicles owned by Aurorans: 211,1561
But at what cost?
BUSINESS AS USUAL
• Estimated 24-year life cycle cost of a surface parking space is $29,2912
Required Parking
BUSINESS AS USUAL
1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms $-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
$2,000.00
$1,181.10
$1,576.25
$172.90
$223.75
Required Parking as a Part of Rent
Remainder Cost of Parking
Current Standards• Parking minimums have
often bet set to match the maximum observed occupancy of free parking
• This results in excess parking– Minimum required residential
parking spaces in Aurora: 415,229
– Total number of vehicles owned by Aurorans: 211,1561
But at what cost?
BUSINESS AS USUAL
• Estimated 24-year life cycle cost of a surface parking space is $29,2912
– $6 billion in excess residential parking costs• $170 monthly per household
Required Parking Provided Parking
BUSINESS AS USUAL
1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms $-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
$2,000.00
$1,181.10
$1,576.25
$172.90
$223.75
Required Parking as a Part of Rent
Remainder Cost of Parking
1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms $-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
$2,000.00
$1,011.03
$1,406.17
$172.90
$223.75
$170.08
$170.08
Provided Parking as a Part of Rent
Remainder Cost of Parking Cost of Excess Parking
Current Standards• Parking minimums have
often bet set to match the maximum observed occupancy of free parking
• This results in excess parking– Minimum required residential
parking spaces in Aurora: 415,229
– Total number of vehicles owned by Aurorans: 211,1561
But at what cost?
BUSINESS AS USUAL
• Estimated 24-year life cycle cost of a surface parking space is $29,2912
– $6 billion in excess residential parking costs• $170 monthly per household
– 7% of Aurora households do not own a vehicle• Still pay $173 in parking for
1 bedroom, $224 for 2 or 3 bedroom in addition to the $170 for excess spaces
Economic Spending
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
• If all the extra money paying for building and maintaining excess parking were eliminated, the city could see an increase in economic activity of $20.75 million monthly– Just from residential!– Sales tax revenue if all money
were spent in the city of $9.3 million annually
Land Consumption• An average parking space in
Aurora is 574 square feet– Includes “Hard Surface” square
footage on site plans– Includes drive through facilities,
drive aisles• A 20,000 square foot retail user
requiring 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet will require 80 spaces– 45,920 square feet– Consumes an average of 59.2%
of the site
ADDITIONAL COSTS
An Aurora Evaluation• The area bordered by 6th Avenue,
I-225, Mississippi Avenue, and Chambers Road (all figures approximate)– 1,238 Acres of land
• 327 acres (26.4%) Parking• 255 acres (20.6%)
Roads/driveways• 125 acres (10.1%) developable• 112 acres (9.1%) parks or
floodplains• This leaves 418 acres (33.8%)
currently generating tax revenue
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Land Consumption• An average parking space in
Aurora is 574 square feet– Includes “Hard Surface” square
footage on site plans– Includes drive through facilities,
drive aisles• A 20,000 square foot retail user
requiring 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet will require 80 spaces– 45,920 square feet– Consumes an average of 59.2%
of the site
What if?
ADDITIONAL COSTS
• What if Denver’s 20 tallest buildings had to meet Aurora’s minimum parking standards?– What if all this parking were
provided in a surface lot?– What would it look like?– How much space would it
consume at 320 square feet per space?
DENVER PARKING
Land Consumption What if?
DENVER PARKING
• What if Denver’s 20 tallest buildings had to meet Aurora’s minimum parking standards?– What if all this parking were
provided in a surface lot?– What would it look like?– How much space would it
consume? • 17,885,992 square feet• 411 Acres
Economic SpendingIncreased Property Taxes
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
• If all excess residential parking were converted to single family housing at 5 du/acre, an additional 4,567 single family detached houses would be available– Approximately $617 million
in property value– Increasing Aurora’s property
tax revenue by $5.3 million annually
• If all the extra money paying for building and maintaining excess parking were eliminated, the city could see an increase in economic activity of $20.75 million monthly– Just from residential!– Sales tax revenue if all money
were spent in the city of $9.3 million annually
Case StudiesWestminster’s Change
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
• Found the demand to be the same in suburban locations and around rail station
• Flat parking requirements– 1 space per residential unit– 1 space per 300 square feet– That’s it! No categories, no
specific uses• Allow developers to “buy-
in” to parking district
• Westminster hired Fox, Tuttle, Hernandez to perform a parking evaluation– Found residential 43% over-
parked– Retail 65% over-parked
• 54% over-parked when adjusted for seasonal variation
– Office 45% over-parked
Staff Recommendations Consultant Report
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
• Significant reduction in minimums for Subarea A; negligible reduction in Subareas B and C
• Credits for proximity to transit, bike parking, shared parking, and public parking
• Maximum lot frontage of 40% in subarea A, 60% in B and C
• Drastically reduce minimum requirements
• Expand shared parking opportunities
• Provide significant parking reduction opportunities
• Limit surface parking; not maximum parking
Staff Recommendations Consultant Report
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
• Significant reduction in minimums for Subarea A; negligible reduction in Subareas B and C
• Credits for proximity to transit, bike parking, shared parking, and public parking
• Maximum lot frontage of 40% in subarea A, 60% in B and C
• Drastically reduce minimum requirements
• Expand shared parking opportunities
• Provide significant parking reduction opportunities
• Limit surface parking; not maximum parking
Initial Evaluation of Consultant Code
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
• Add opportunities for reductions– Bike share, car share, eco pass,
shuttle to transit, other ideas?• Increase the shared parking
factors• Expand the shared parking factors
to consider abutting land uses• Install a maximum parking
footprint
• Critical review• Eliminate difference in
minimums among subareas• Lower minimums
– Default to 2.5 per 1,000 square feet except if a use has demonstrated lower requirements• Warehousing, wholesale,
self-storage, etc.
Maximum Parking Footprint
Recommended Addition to Code
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS
• No maximum parking requirement
• Above 30% hardscape requires bonus features
• Increment at 40%• Hard max of 50% of site
area– May provide structured
parking if they wish to provide more
• A review of 5 retail sites in Aurora– Average of 59.2% of site
hardscaped– Average FAR of 0.19– Average ratio of 5.3 spaces
per 1,000 square feet• Reducing minimum reqs to
3 spaces per 1,000 sf– Average of 27% hardscaped at
574 sf per space
Intent Guidelines
GOALS
• Parking management will minimize negative externalities
• Flexible• Enhanced design standards• Minimize environmental
impacts• Promote economic
development
• Minimize the effects of motor vehicle parking
• Balance between meeting market demand, developer expectations, and natural negative impacts
• Increase the availability of productive land use
SOURCES
• h• 1U.S. Census Data American Fact Finder 2009-2013 ACS 5-year tables
B08201 and DP04. Retrieved 29 July 2015• 2Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II, Todd Alexander Litman and
Eric Doherty, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (http://vpti.org/tca/), published 28 August 2013, retrieved 29 July 2015
• 3Rainmaker Insights. "Find Apartments in Your Area." Average Rent In Aurora, Aurora Rent Trends and Rental Comps. Rainmaker Insights, 01 Oct. 2015. Web. 11 Jan. 2016.
• Increase the availability of productive land use
Site Plan Amendment meets approval criteria with one condition:1. Resolution of outstanding technical issues prior to
recordation of site plan and issuance of any building permit.
STAFF FINDING
Top Related