aurora parking presentation

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


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






But at what cost?

BUSINESS AS USUAL


– $6 billion in excess residential parking costs• $170 monthly per household

Required Parking Provided Parking

BUSINESS AS USUAL


$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


$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






But at what cost?

BUSINESS AS USUAL


– $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

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

http://vpti.org/tca/

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

aurora parking presentation

Documents