HomeMy WebLinkAboutCase Study Memo_4_10_17 v5 Page │ 1
PO Box 12546
Portland, OR 97212
Phone: (503) 459-7638
www.rickwilliamsconsulting.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Fine City of Bozeman, MT
FROM: Rick Williams, RWC
Owen Ronchelli, RWC
Pete Collins, RWC
Kathryn Dorothy-Chapman, RWC
DATE: April 7, 2017
RE: City of Bozeman – Parking Standards – Case Studies
The City of Bozeman is in the process of evaluating the Midtown Corridor. Part of this process is to
analyze the current parking standards associated with specific land uses currently or envisioned to be
located along North 7th Avenue, the primary thruway located in the Midtown Corridor. In the second of
a two part process (part one – parking demand analysis), the consultant team, in coordination with the
City, selected six peer cities to review changes to their parking standards. Peer cities were selected by
the City based on their implementation of more streamlined parking policies and were chosen for their
relative similarity to Bozeman on at least one of several characteristics (i.e., size, or location, or cold
winters, or a university community). The six peer cities evaluated were:
Bellingham, WA
Billings, MT
Dana Point, CA
Fargo, ND
Marquette, MI
Mercer Island, WA
This memorandum evaluates each peer city based on several factors related to their parking standards.
Cities were contacted by both email and phone, and asked the same questions. These questions
included:
Has your community changed its parking development requirements? In what way?
Have you changed your minimum parking standards? If yes, did you lower the minimums?
Page │ 2
What was the reason for the change? (e.g., response to the development community, encourage
more dense development, reduce the cost of development, etc.).
Was it difficult to get elected officials to support the decision? How was it done?
Do you have parking maximums?
What areas of your city did these changes affect? (e.g., downtown, urban renewal district,
neighborhood, city-wide, etc.?)
What were the basis/metrics used to make these changes? (i.e., locally derived data, case
studies/peer cities, etc.)
Were the changes fully adopted by City Council?
What has been the result from these changes? (both in terms of development and public
response)
Has development occurred since the change and at what level was parking built (at the changed
or previous standards?)
What advice would you give to other cities considering similar changes to their parking code?
Key Findings
Parking Standard Reductions
Minimum parking ratios, in general, were reduced in all case studies across multiple land use categories.
The residential minimum reduction ranged from 0% (Marquette) to 200% (Billings and Fargo), while the
commercial reduction, across multiple categories, ranged from 35% (Mercer Island) to 100+% (Dana
Point, Fargo, and Marquette). There were a few exceptions where no reductions were made, such as
Marquette’s residential minimums remained the same while commercial parking minimums were
eliminated altogether. Bellingham went the extra step to simplify and condense their land use
categories and used averages (ratios) to apply minimums to a broader range of commercial and
residential uses.
Parking Maximums
Five of the six case studies did not have parking maximums. Mercer Island, in general, had very high
maximums in all land use categories, but they too were lowered with the adjustments to the
minimums, particularly for residential uses. Fargo does not have maximums, but has some conditional
use overlays on a couple of future projects that restrict the number of stalls built (a project-specific
maximum).
Page │ 3
Reasons for Parking Standard Change
A number of reasons were cited for the impetus for altering parking development requirements. This
was due in part to the range of land use types targeted/affected by the changes. In many cases,
however, encouraging development was a driving factor for the amendments. Also, a desire to ‘right-
size’ parking to ensure off-street parking supplies were commensurate with local demand, to avoid
building excess unused parking. And finally, reducing parking standards allowed for a more compact,
pedestrian-oriented, dense urban landscape which many of the cities desired in the selected areas.
Metrics Used for Change
Similar to the City of Bozeman’s methodology, the case study cities analyzed local parking data
gathered through parking studies, and coupled it with peer city reviews to understand parking standard
reductions and their associated outcomes. In some cases, anecdotal input provided by the public also
provided information in guiding parking amendments.
City Council Adoption
Five of the six cities adopted the parking standard changes. The Dana Point plan was originally adopted
by Council, but subsequent (years later) updates of parking standards were not well presented in the
context of the originally adopted plan (which the plan called for a review of those standards). This
caused some anxiety among some citizen groups, which ultimately resulted in a ballot referendum on
the amendments (and the adopted plan), which reverted back to parking standards previously in place.
Key Take-Aways
Work with a parking advisory committee (public stakeholder group), which provides a sounding board
for proposed changes. Vetting changes through an advisory committee can help refine changes and
help proactively address public concerns before they can react negatively. Seek input from the
community, not just property owners and builders – Billings, MT.
Conduct parking utilization studies and use credible local data to legitimize (prove) the need for
change. Be as transparent as possible with the process.
Learn and borrow from you neighbors – conduct peer city reviews to assess the level of change needed.
It is important to continue to monitor, and if need be, modify those changes. It is a long and continual
process – Marquette, MI.
If excess parking exists, use it before building more parking – Mercer Island, WA.
Page │ 4
Case Studies
Six peer cities were evaluated and selected due to similarity in particular metrics (population, climate,
lifestyle, etc.). As stated above, the cities were selected by the client, the City of Bozeman, and
contacted by the consultant team, Rick Williams Consulting. Each city was asked the same questions to
understand their parking standard amendments, the process and the resulting impacts. Individual case
studies are presented on the following pages.
Page │ 5
Land Use Previous Minimums Current Minimums
Residential
Studio 1.0 1.0
1-bedroom 1.5 1.0
2-bedroom 1.5 1.0
3-bedroom 0.5 per additional room 0.5 per additional room
Commercial Dependent on Use 2.0 per 1,000 SF
With an update to Bellingham’s Comprehensive Planning
efforts, the City amended its parking standards. For
additional information:
City of Bellingham Municipal Code:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Bellingham/
Reasons for Change
To simplify their land use parking code.
To reduce the workload on City staff when different parking
standards were required based on changing land uses.
To reduce the workload for developers and tenants to
comply with parking requirements.
To encourage transportation options in/near ‘Urban
Villages’.
To let ‘the market’ determine their parking needs.
Parking Standard Changes
Bellingham, WA
85,146 residents
Whatcom County, WA
Largest employer:
Western Washington
University
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Bellingham
Planning & Community Dev.
Christopher Koch, Planner II
360.778.8349
ckoch@cob.org
Page │ 6
Parking Maximums
No parking maximums exist.
Method to Gain Support
Worked with elected officials and the two stakeholder groups (business community and local
residents) to build support.
Key to gaining support was to wrap the amendments into large master planning efforts, so that
the focus was not sole on the parking amendments.
Areas Affected By Parking Amendments
Six ‘Urban Villages’, areas/neighborhoods within the City of Bellingham.
- These areas were not similar in land uses, or any particular metric. In addition to
parking standard reductions, these Villages are allowed to reduce required parking
minimums by conforming to any number of additional offsetting parking
programs/projects.
Metrics for Parking Amendments
The City of Bellingham used two methods:
1) Analyzed the City’s requirements for all of the land uses (eliminating outliners) and created
averages for simplified land uses to determine fair ratios.
2) Researched cities which had reduced their parking standards. Case study cities included:
Portland, OR
Vancouver, WA
White Rock, BC
Richman, BC
“Let the Market determine its parking needs”
Christopher Koch, Planner II, City of Bellingham
Page │ 7
Bellingham’s Urban Villages
City Council Response
City Council adopted the new parking standards.
- The process affecting the first Urban Village (Old Town) was lengthy, however, the
process for the remaining Villages was relatively quick.
Result of These Changes
Overall positive, intended changes have resulted from the amendments to the parking
standards. The different Villages saw the following changes:
Old Town: Most challenging, yet has seen two projects built (residential & mixed-use).
Downtown District: The standards have stimulated a large increase in development.
Fairhaven District: Three projects in the pipeline.
Samish Way: Two commercial & three residential developments have resulted.
Fountain District: Residential, mixed use and commercial development have occurred.
Waterfront District: Two developments have adhered to the old parking standards: Walgreens
and a Marijuana Store.
Page │ 8
Advice to Other Cities
Establish a minimum parking standard and let the market determine the parking needs. These
changes yield:
- Better predictability for parking uses.
- Minimize the process for City staff, developers and tenants
- Replicability – The City of Bellingham is looking to expand these parking amendments.
Page │ 9
BILLINGS, MT
104,170 residents
Yellowstone County,
MT
Largest employer:
Billings Clinic
With on-street paid parking and four off-street parking
garages, along with numerous surface lot options, parking
options are robust and regulated by the City of Billings. The
City, in partnership with various consulting firms since 2010,
has tracked their parking supply, and creating strategy plans
to guide decision-making. In regard to off-street parking
standard requirements, little has changed since 1972 with the
exception of two areas. In the 1980s, off-street parking
requirements for the Central Business District (CBD) were
eliminated in conjunction with the creation of downtown
parking garages and the downtown parking district. In 2010,
the East Billings Urban Renewal District (EBURD) also
eliminated its parking standards.
For additional information:
City of Billings Municipal code:https://www.municode.com
/library/mt/billings/codes/code_of_ordinances
Reasons for Change
The two areas affected had different reasons for change:
CBD: To encourage the use of the downtown area for high-value uses.
EBURD: To facilitate redevelopment within the Urban Renewal District that would have
required variances otherwise.
Parking Standard Changes – CBD & EBURD
Land Use Previous Minimums Current Minimums
Residential
Single family/duplex 2 per dwelling unit No minimum
Multi-family 1 per 1 unit; 1.5 per 2 or more unit No minimum
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Billings
Zoning Coordinator
Planning & Community Services
CromwellN@ci.billings.mt.us
Page │ 10
Land Use Previous Minimums Current Minimums
Commercial
Retail – General
(i.e. convenience store) 1 per 80 SF w/ 10 spaces minimum No minimum
Retail - Food 1 per 100 SF No minimum
Retail – Hotel 1 per hotel room plus 1/2
employee on shift No minimum
Office – Financial/Other 1 per 300 SF No minimum
Parking Maximums
No maximums
Method to Gain Support
CBD: The city of Billings, with the support of the downtown businesses, initiated the exemption
in the CBD due to a parking district and building campaign to provide off-street parking for a
fee.
EBURD: With the assistance of an outside consultant, who provided relevant case studies of
urban parking standards and a methodology to trigger a parking district when on-street parking
became constrained, the 400-acre EBURD’s parking standards were amended.
Areas Affected By Parking Amendments
Two areas in Billings are exempt from the citywide parking standards:
“No minimum off-street parking spaces are required at the time of development,
redevelopment, expansion, change of use or addition to public, commercial, industrial
or residential property”
Billings Municipal Code. Article 27-1800. East Billings Urban Revitalization District Code.
“There is a significant cost to off-street parking but most places provide this for ‘free’ to
their customers.”
Nicole Cromwell Zoning Coordinator, City of Billings
Page │ 11
1) Central Business District
2) East Billings Urban Renewal District.
Metrics for Parking Amendments
The City of Billings used three means for the 2010 EBURD amendments:
1) Local data
2) Anecdotal cases within the EBURD
3) Researched peer cities with lower parking standards.
City Council Response
City Council adopted the
new parking standards.
Result of These Changes
Development from the
2010 changes in the
EBURD have not been
out of the ordinary.
Advice to Other Cities
Off-street parking
standards should not be solely based on land use.
Seek input from the community, not just property owners and builders.
Create a diverse stake group to understand how to change your off-street parking code.
City of Billings –East Billings Urban Renewal District
Page │ 12
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Dana Point
Community Development Director
Ursula Luna- Reynosa
(949) 248-3567
Uluna-reynosa@DanaPoint.org
DANA POINT, CA
35,100 Residents
Orange County, CA
Largest employer:
Tourism and hospitality, boat
sales and services.
The City of Dana Point, California adopted a Downtown
revitalization plan which re-zoned the historic center of
town, the Lantern District, to mixed-use in 2008. The
plan did not address parking management in the code
but included implementation language about future
actions the city should take regarding parking and
development. Later parking management plans were
met with controversy and a public referendum was
brought to a vote in 2016 which resulted in overturning
the recently approved parking management plan and
made any future changes to parking management even
more onerous.
For additional information:
City of Dana Point Municipal code:
http://www.danapoint.org/department/community-
development/planning/planning-documents/zoning-code
Reasons for Change
The motivation for developing both the Lantern District
plan and the later parking management plan was to make it easier for new development and businesses
to help make the downtown more walkable and vibrant. A parking demand study conducted by Ferh
and Peers, found that even in the peak hour, on both private and public lots and on-street, parking was
oversupplied by 1,000 spaces. After the passing of the Lantern District Plan, they had several
developers attempt to build mixed-use projects, but the parking requirements were too burdensome,
from both a cost and space perspective. This led the city to re-ignite their parking management
planning efforts and they hired Nelson/Nygaard to conduct a study and develop a plan. This resulted in
the proposed requirements below.
Page │ 13
Parking Standard Changes (Lantern District Plan):
Land Use Current Minimums Proposed in Downtown*
(Lantern District)
Residential – Single Family
Single Family
1 Bedroom- 1.5
2 Bedroom – 2.0 Covered
3+ bedrooms – 2.5
1 bedroom - 1.0 per unit
2+ bedrooms - 2.0 per unit
Residential – Multi-Family
700 SF – 1,500 SF units 1 assigned space +
0.17 - 1.5 unassigned spaces 1 bedroom - 1/unit
2- 3 Bedrooms 2.0 - 2.5 per unit --Covered 2+bedrooms - 2/unit
Commercial Dependent on Use
1/75 SF- 1/ 2,000 SF
All non-residential uses:
2.0 per 1,000 SF
* These were passed by the Planning Commission or City Council in 2015, then overturned by a public vote in 2016.
The current and proposed codes both allow for developers to apply for a variance and conditional use
permits for alternatives to the minimum parking requirements, including:
Shared parking
Joint-use
In-lieu parking fees
Bicycle parking standards are required for multi-family and mixed use developments.
The Lantern District Plan outlines actions that would expedite parking improvements to support
merchants and residents and encourage development on vacant and underutilized parcels.
Policy 4.1: Provide opportunities for shared parking facilities in the Lantern District, such as through the
establishment of shared, available to the public parking facilities by (a) leasing or purchasing existing
private parking facilities and making them available to the public, and (b) adopting requirements for
parking that incentivize the provision of shared parking facilities, that are available to the general
public, in both new developments and on properties undergoing a change of use”
– City of Dana Point. Municipal Code.
“I would advise any city to address parking issues in a larger plan, that way you have
the vision and plan goals to back up your parking proposals. Also take time to work with
the community influencers to help them advocate for your parking management plan.”
Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director, City of Dana Point
Page │ 14
Parking Maximums
No maximums
Method to Gain Support
During the parking management planning process, their outreach efforts were thorough and
they including working with residents and businesses, several public open houses as well as
one-on-one meetings, and held several work sessions with their planning and city
commissioners. This ultimately didn’t help them gain public support.
Areas Affected By Parking Amendments
Proposed amendments were for the Downtown or the Lantern District.
Metrics for Parking Amendments
A professional plan was completed which included on and off-street parking counts.
Peer review of cities with different parking standards.
City Council Response
City Council support was mixed, but ultimately voted to approve the parking management plan
in 2015. The public developed a petition to revert the approved parking policies in 2016.
Result of These Changes
After passing the initial plan in 2008, they had hoped for new developments to be built. However,
they found that their suburban based parking requirements were too onerous and none were
actually built. They have had four mixed-use projects in the past seven years proposed; so far none
have been built. They were successful in converting several private parking lots into public lots
which are shared amongst numerous businesses and uses.
Advice to Other Cities
The original Lantern District plan did not address parking in the zoning code, but rather included
loose implementation language. Their advice is take the time to get the parking component
(specifics) of the plan right; by doing so the larger plan’s vision and goals support the parking
management strategies as one cohesive unit. Take the time to educate and gain support from
community influencers, they can become important allies and external champions of the planning
effort.
Page │ 15
FARGO, ND
●118,523 Residents
●Cass County, ND
●Largest employer:
Microsoft Business
Solutions, Bobcat Co,
John Deere, North Dakota
State University,
healthcare, etc.
●Recreational amenities:
Large City park system, (3.5
times larger than Central
Park) Fargo Marathon (a
Boston Marathon qualifier)
regional snowmobiling,
skiing, hunting, fishing, etc.
The City of Fargo adopted a new Land Development Code
which included different zoning districts in 1998. This
included the elimination of any minimum parking
requirements in the Downtown district.
It is important to note that since 1940, the State of North
Dakota has had a statewide ban on any parking payment
facilities, so traditional parking meters and pay stations
are illegal. However they are working on a way to work
around that state law to allow them to use price to
manage on-street parking more efficiently. The City
operates most of the off-street parking facilities
Downtown, with 11 lots, garages and structures, with 1100
parking spaces, which 90% are sold monthly to
employees.
Parking Management Tools:
Time limits
Residential Parking Permits (Downtown only) $25/
month
City-owned garages, 1100 spaces. Hourly rates:
$1.50/hr 8am-5pm, Monthly: $56-90 a month
Park and Ride lot at the Mall with a shuttle to
Downtown
Shared parking between uses
Alternative Access Plans per conditional use
City of Fargo Municipal Code:
https://www.cityoffargo.com/attachments/7d2ec397-f7e6-
4913-a983-b12563fd9532/LDC%20-%20updated%209-
2015.pdf
Reasons for Change
Spur development and re-development downtown
More flexibility for development
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Fargo
Planning & Community Dev.
Derrick LaPoint, Planner
701-476-6751
dlapoint@cityoffargo.com
Page │ 16
Retain the walkable historic downtown
Parking Standard Changes
Land Use Previous Minimum Current Minimum
Residential
Studio 1.25 per unit No minimum
1-bedroom 2.0 per unit No minimum
2-bedroom 2.0 per unit No minimum
3-bedroom 2.0 per unit No minimum
Commercial Dependent on Use
0.50 per 1,000 SF – 13.3 per 1,000 SF No minimum
Parking Maximums
Not as a standard, but they do have some conditional use overlays in upcoming projects that dictate a
maximum number of parking spaces allowed.
Method to Gain Support
It was not difficult to gain support. At the time, Downtown was a ghost town so anything which would
aid in reviving it was regarded as a positive. There also was so little development that the fears of not
having any parking were far away. There was a bit of backlash more recently with retailers worrying
about customers needing parking right in front, but for the most part the public and downtown
community supports the policy.
Areas Affected By Parking Amendments
This was only for the Downtown zoning district
Metrics for Parking Amendments
Parking count data
The city conducts their own parking counts regularly for on and off-street, so they had several
years of data to use.
Page │ 17
Use findings from parking studies for calibration.
They also regularly complete parking studies to help guide their management efforts. They
employed those past parking studies to determine the change.
City Council Response
The changes were fully adopted by City Council
Result of These Changes
Overall very positive. Downtown has seen significantly more development from offices and retail to
residential since this change was enacted. Residential developments still build about 1 parking space
per unit, but office and retail do not. A number of surface lots have been developed into housing and
mixed use. This development has increased the tax base from $190 million in 2003 and is now $600
million (as of 2015) in the Renaissance Zones (which Downton is part of). Parking demand is still
relatively high in Downtown Fargo, they are working on ways to work around the state law to charge
for on-street payment, perhaps an online payment system in the future.
Advice to Other Cities
Having the parking changes in a part of a larger plan, like a whole code update or downtown
streetscape plan really helps people see how it can benefit a downtown.
Page │ 18
MARQUETTE, MI
21,000 residents
Marquette County, MI
Largest employers: Marquette
General Hospital, Northern
Michigan University and tourist
based businesses.
Contact information:
Mona Lang, Executive Director
Marquette Downtown
Development Authority
906-228-9475
Mlang@downtownmarquette.org
The Marquette Downtown Development Authority
(MDDA) championed eliminating parking requirements
for office and commercial uses in their Central Business
District (CBD) in 2000 after numerous studies were
completed and a City Commission appointed committee
studied the issue. Minimum requirements for residential
uses remain in place. The City is working on removing all
parking minimums for commercial uses City-wide this
year.
City of Marquette Municipal code:
http://www.mqtcty.org/Government/Code/80_
zoning20160720.pdf
Reasons for Change
To help attract new businesses to open downtown,
by eliminating an “undue burden”.
To right-size parking requirements in line with their
urban form.
Help preserve historic buildings from being razed for
parking.
Parking Standard Changes
Land Use Previous Minimums Current Minimums
Residential
Single Family and Multi-family 2/unit Same
Educational 1/ instructor
1/every 4-10 students Same
Retail 6.6 stalls per 1,000 SF No minimum
Office 5.0 stall per 1,000 SF No minimum
Page │ 19
Parking Maximums
No maximums
Method to Gain Support
At first it was difficult to get support by property and business owners; however, an ad hoc committee
was formed to review other cities with similar climates and review the data and recommendations.
They invested in numerous parking studies and even intercept surveys to determine how shoppers and
visitors were using the parking system.
Areas Affected By Parking Amendments
Initially in the Downtown Central Business District (CBD) in 2000, located in the Downtown
Marquette Waterfront Zoning District (form based code) in 2008, and then just recently in a
neighborhood commercial area (Community Business Zoning) in 2016.
“Parking should be approached as a system and as a development tool.”
Mona Lang, Downtown Development Authority
Page │ 20
Metrics for Parking Amendments
The Downtown Development Authority had commissioned several parking studies that all
indicated that the parking supply was more than sufficient for the current and future demand
and that by encouraging more intensive and compact land uses, there would be more economic
activity downtown.
City Council Response
City Council passed the amendment ordinance in 2000 for the Downtown CBD zoning district.
Result of These Changes
Overall extremely positive.
- Vacancy rate is less than 2%
- Taxable values increased by 75% since 2003
- Residential units have increased 300%.
The downtown is booming and redevelopment is robust. While it took some time to realize
these results, desired outcomes are being achieved. An anticipated change the city is still
waiting on is the redevelopment of private surface parking lots, though that change is expected
sometime in the not too distant future. There is still a mentality that business must retain
parking exclusively for their customers and more work needs to be done on a “park once”
solution. There is still an issue with business owners not doing enough to encourage employees
to park elsewhere or to take other options. It is too soon to tell for the Community Business
Zoning District yet what the results are.
Advice to Other Cities
Sound data and transparency is important.
Parking should be approached as a system and as a development tool. It is important to
continue to monitor and if need be, modify those changes. It is a long and continual process.
Clean, safe public parking areas as well as convenient access to those parking areas is key and
should be a stated goal when the code changes begin.
Page │ 21
MERCER ISLAND, WA
22,699 residents
King County, WA
Largest employer: Farmers
Insurance Group
CONTACT INFORMATION:
BERK Consulting
Planner
206.493.2384
jeff@berkconsulting.com
In response to parking concerns, the City of Mercer Island, in
coordination with a consultant, conducted a parking study in
2016. The study was focused on their Town Center, an area
once thought of as a suburban shopping area which has
transformed into multiple mid-rise mixed-use building with
growing access to transportation options. The findings of the
study along with a review of relevant peer cities lead to
amendments to their parking standards. For additional
information:
City of Mercer Island Municipal Code:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/MercerIsland/
REASONS FOR CHANG
To address future growth and development.
To understand if the right amount of parking is being built
now and for the future.
To ensure quality of life for residents.
Parking Standard Changes
Land Use Previous Minimum Current Minimum
Residential – All unit sizes 1 to 3 per unit 1 to 1.4 per unit*
Commercial
Retail – General 3 to 5 per 1,000 SF 2 to 3 per 1,000 SF**
Retail - Food 1 to 11 per 1,000 SF 5 to 10 per 1,000 SF
Retail – Hotel
1 per hotel room plus 2/3
employee on shift and 5 per 1,000
SF of retail/office
1 per hotel room plus 2/3
employee on shift and 5 per 1,000
SF of retail/office
Page │ 22
Office – Financial/Other 3 to 5 per 1,000 SF 2 to 3 per 1,000 SF
The previous residential parking standards were a range, and therefore allowed for on-site parking to
be overbuilt. The City’s 2016 parking study estimated the actual demand per residential unit (based
upon three mixed-use buildings located in the Town Center) to be 1.1 per unit. Similarly, non-residential
demand was substantially less than the built parking. The overall demand for all non-residential uses
was 1.7 per 1,000 SF (peak demand varied by land use). Non-residential uses ratios were reduced with
the exception of Hotel which remained the same.
* Allow site specific deviations for parking less than 1 stall per unit based on detailed parking analysis
and with approval of Code Official.
Parking Maximums
Yes, however, the maximums were high and were lowered, in particular for residential use.
Method to Gain Support
In April, 2016, a parking study was conducted for the Town Center. Despite perceptions of a parking
constraint, the data showed that actual demand was less than existing parking minimums for retail and
office use. Existing residential maximums were also realized as too high compared to demand. Local,
demand data was key.
Areas affected by parking amendments
The Town Center – a developing, highly dense, mixed-use area in Mercer Island. ‘Urban
Villages’, areas/neighborhoods within the City of Bellingham.
Metrics for Parking Amendments
The City of Mercer Island used two methods:
“Use local data and if the data shows a lot of empty parking, try to maximize use of what
you already have before building more.”
Jeff Arango, Project Manager of 2016 Mercer Island Parking Study, BERK
Page │ 23
1) Local data derived from the 2016 Parking Study which showed the difference between land
uses’ built parking and the actual parking demand in the Town Center. Many of the
recommendations from the study were used for the parking standard amendments.
2) Researched peer cities with lower parking standards. Case study cities included:
Kirkland, WA (downtown)
Bothell, WA (downtown)
City Council Response
City Council adopted the new parking
standards.
Result of These Changes
Too early to comment on the
development results, however, there
was no opposition to the changes by
the public.
Advice to Other Cities
Utilize local data to determine actual
parking demand verse built parking.
If excess parking exists, use it before
building more parking.
Align local regulations with local data and maintain
some flexibility.
City of Mercer Island – Town Center – Land
Uses. Source: Source: BERK, 2015; King County
Assessor, 2015.
Page │ 24
CASE STUDY: SUMMARY MATRIX
2016 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Below is a summary of the key findings derived from the six case study cities which have changed their parking minimums recently.
CITY CONTACT INFO LAND USE PAST
PARKING
STANDARDS
CURRENT
PARKING
STANDARDS
%
CHANGE
- RANGE
MAXIMUMS
(Y/N)
PRIMARY
REASONS FOR
CHANGE
METRICS FOR
CHANGE
ADOPTED
BY CITY
COUNCIL
(Y/N)
MUNICIPAL CODE LINK
Bellingham
, WA
Christopher Koch;
360.778.8349;
ckoch@cob.org
Residential 1.5 per unit 1 per unit 50% N Simplify parking
code for staff &
developers
Encourage
alternative modes
Let market
determine need
Review and
condense land use
categories – use
averages for ratios
Peer city review
Y http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/
Bellingham/
Commercial Dependent
upon use
1 per 500 SF Varies
Billings,
MT (CBD &
EBURD)
Nicole Cromwell;
CromwellN@ci.bil
lings.mt.us
Residential 2 per dwelling
unit
No minimum 200% N Encourage (more
dense / high value)
downtown
development
Facilitate
redevelopment
within URD
Local data
Anecdotal cases
Peer city review
Y https://www.municode.com
/library/mt/billings/codes/code_of_ord
inances Commercial
(convenience
store)
1 per 80 SF No minimum 100%
Dana
Point, CA
Shayne Sharke;
949.248.3567;
ssharke@DanaPo
int.org
Residential 1 BR = 1.5
2 BR = 2.0
3+ BR = 2.5
1 BR = 1.0
2+ BR = 2.0
25% -
50%
N Shared parking
Joint use
In-lieu parking fees
Parking plan w/ on
& off-street
parking counts
Peer city review
Yes, but
later
repealed
http://www.danapoint.org/departme
nt/community-
development/planning/planning-
documents/zoning-code Commercial
(convenience
store)
Range:
1 per 75 SF to
1 per 2,000 SF
2.0 per 1,000
SF
100+%
Fargo, ND Derrick LaPoint;
701.476.6751;
dlapoint@cityoffa
rgo.com
Residential 2 per unit No minimum 200% No, but
conditional
use overlays
(project
specific) with
maximums
Encourage
development and
redevelopment in
downtown
Provide more
flexibility for
development
Parking count data
Parking study
findings to
recalibrate system
(as needed)
Y https://www.cityoffargo.com/attach
ments/7d2ec397-f7e6-4913-a983-
b12563fd9532/LDC%20-
%20updated%209-2015.pdf
Commercial Range:
0.5 per 1,000
SF to 13.3 per
1,000 SF
No minimum 100+%
Page │ 25
CITY CONTACT INFO LAND USE PAST
PARKING
STANDARDS
CURRENT
PARKING
STANDARDS
%
CHANGE
- RANGE
MAXIMUMS
(Y/N)
PRIMARY
REASONS FOR
CHANGE
METRICS FOR
CHANGE
ADOPTED
BY CITY
COUNCIL
(Y/N)
MUNICIPAL CODE LINK
Marquette,
MI (CBD)
Mona Lang;
906.228.9475;
Mlang@downtow
nmarquette.org
Residential 2 per unit 2 per unit 0% N Attract businesses
Right-size parking
Historic preservation
Multiple parking
studies showed
over supply
More intensive/
compact land use
equal more econ.
activity
Y http://www.mqtcty.org/Government/
Code/80_ zoning20160720.pdf
Commercial
(office)
6.6 per 1,000
SF
No minimum 100+%
Mercer
Island, WA
Jeff Arrango;
206.493.2384;
jeff@berkconsulti
ng.com
Residential
(All unit sizes)
1 to 3 per unit 1 to 1.4 per
unit
0% to
53%
Yes,
originally
very high;
reduced
along with
minimums
Address growth
Right-size parking
Ensure quality of life
Parking study with
local data
Peer city review
Y http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/
MercerIsland/
Commercial
(General)
3 to 5 per
1,000 SF
2 to 3 per
1,000 SF
33% to
40%