HomeMy WebLinkAboutMidtown Parking Assessment Summary and Recommendations 4-10-17 (v9) Page │ 1
PO Box 12546
Portland, OR 97212
Phone: (503) 459‐7638
rickwilliamsconsulting.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Fine, City of Bozeman
FROM: Owen Ronchelli, RWC
Pete Collins, RWC
Rick Williams, RWC
DATE: April 10, 2017 (v9)
RE: City of Bozeman – Midtown Parking Assessment Summary & Recommendations
I. BACKGROUND
Across America cities are revisiting their parking development codes in an effort to ‘right‐size’ them.
Many municipal codes which date back to the late 70s and early 80s have remained unaltered and
continue to be the blueprint for the provision of parking despite revised industry standards and
different sensibilities surrounding livability and urban form. As such, cities are using improved parking
data analysis and lessons learned from other cities as the basis for recalibrating their codes in a manner
that directs developers to build only the number of parking stalls needed to meet parking demand,
while maximizing the land use and building area devoted to commerce/residential uses. These code
refinements can help spur development by reducing the onus of building costly and unnecessary
parking and thereby maximizing leasable building area where the return on investment is higher.
The City of Bozeman, engaged Rick Williams Consulting (RWC) to assess parking demand for a select
number of properties both in and outside of the Midtown corridor. The assessment looked at existing
parking requirements for new or redeveloped uses (minimum and maximum parking ratios), the
number of built parking stalls, and the number of occupied stalls during the land uses’ peak hour.1 The
consultant also conducted a detailed case study of six peer cities to look at changes they made to their
parking development code and the outcomes that have resulted from those changes. 2
This summary report consolidates the findings from the parking demand assessment (November 2016)
and case study of peer cities (January 2017) and provides recommendations based on what was learned
1 See, Rick Williams Consulting, 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation Summary (January 14, 2017) for the full
report on local data findings.
2 See Rick Williams Consulting, City of Bozeman – Parking Standards – Case Studies (January 25 2017) for the full detailed
report of the six case study cities.
Page │ 2
from these analyses. Interestingly, similar processes involving local data collection and peer reviews
were cited in several of the case studies – all precursors to recalibrating parking development codes.
II. CURRENT CITY PARKING STANDARDS (Bozeman)
At present, parking standards for development in Bozeman are located in Chapter 38, Article 25 of the
Unified Development code. Code standards are provided for residential and non‐residential land uses.
The base standards for parking are included in Tables 38.25.040‐1 (residential) and 38.25.040‐3 (non‐
residential).
Additional tables and standards are provided that define and allow for adjustments to the minimum
parking requirements for the residential and non‐residential land uses (38.25.040‐2 and 38.25.040‐4,
respectively). Adjustments/reductions to required minimums include allowances for affordable
housing, mixed‐use projects, credit for on‐street parking, car‐sharing, proximity to transit, and
structured parking.
In specific zoning districts, additional adjustments are defined which can reduce parking required for
specific land uses (e.g., B‐1, B‐2M, B‐3). Within the base standard tables, there are 12 separate
“residential” and 23 “non‐residential” land use designations. The number of standards increases
substantially when evaluated relative to the specific zoning districts.
With the number of residential and non‐residential parking standards dependent upon varying zoning land
uses, combined with a number of parking allowances/reductions; Article 25 of the City of Bozeman’s
parking standards can quickly become overly complicated. Most of the case study (peer) cities reviewed
faced similar challenges and opportunities as Bozeman and moved to consolidate their parking standards,
especially for non‐residential land uses. These cities have either adopted (a) a blended non‐residential
parking rate and/or (b) eliminated the parking minimum standard altogether. Decisions to change parking
standards came after quantifying local data and also examining best practices in peer cities. This has
allowed for a more streamlined and simplified parking code approach.
The base standard tables for residential and non‐residential land uses in Bozeman are provided below.
Table 1: Residential Land Uses – Code Ref. Table 38.25.040‐1
Dwelling Types Parking Spaces Required per Dwelling
Accessory dwelling unit 1
Lodging house 0.75 spaces per person of approved capacity
Efficiency unit 1.25 (1.0 in R‐5 and B‐2M districts)
Page │ 3
Dwelling Types Parking Spaces Required per Dwelling
One‐bedroom 1.5 (1.25 in R‐5 and B‐2M districts)
Two‐bedroom 2 (1.75 in R‐5 and B‐2M districts)
Three‐bedroom 3 (2.5 in R‐5 and B‐2M districts)
Dwellings with more than three bedrooms 4 (3 in R‐5 and B‐2M districts)
Group homes and community residential facilities 0.75 spaces per person of approved capacity 1
Bed and breakfast 1 space/rental unit
All types of dwellings within the B‐3 district 1
Group living /cooperative
household/fraternity/sorority 1 space per resident 1
Table 2: Non‐Residential Land Uses – Code Ref. Table 38.25.040‐3
Use Type Off‐Street or Off‐Road Parking Spaces Required
Automobile sales 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor floor area; plus 1
space per 20 outdoor vehicle display spaces
Automobile service and/or repair station 2 spaces per service stall, but no less than 4 spaces
Bank, financial institutions 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area
Bowling alley 2 spaces per alley; plus 2 spaces per billiard table; plus
Community residential facility with more than 9
residents or age restricted housing 1 space per unit
Health and exercise establishment 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area; plus 3 spaces
per court
Day care centers 1 space per staff member plus 1 space per 15 children
permitted
Furniture stores over 20,000 square feet 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area
Page │ 4
Use Type Off‐Street or Off‐Road Parking Spaces Required
Medical and dental offices 4 spaces for each full‐time equivalent doctor or dentist;
plus 1 space for each full‐time equivalent employee
Manufacturing and industrial uses 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1 space
per 2 employees on maximum working shift
Motels, Hotels
1.1 spaces per each guest room; plus 1 space per
employee on maximum shift; plus spaces for accessory
uses as follows:
Restaurants, bars, dining rooms 1 space per 60 square feet of indoor public serving area;
plus 1 space per 120 square feet of outdoor (patio) area
Commercial area 1 space per each 400 square feet of floor area
Public assembly areas
1 space for each 5 seats based upon design capacity,
except that total off‐street parking for public assembly
may be reduced by 1 space for every 4 guest rooms
Nursing homes, rest homes or similar uses 4 spaces; plus 1 space for each 3 beds; plus 1 space for
each employee on maximum shift
Offices (except medical and dental) 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area
Outdoor sales (plant nurseries, building materials,
equipment rental and similar)
1 space per 500 square feet of sales and/or display area.
The size of the sales and/or display area shall be
determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
Restaurants, cafes, bars and similar uses 1 space per 50 square feet of indoor public serving area;
plus 1 space per 100 square feet of outdoor (patio) area
Retail store and service establishments 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area
Sales sites; model homes 1 space per 250 square feet of model floor areas; plus 1
space per employee
Theater, auditorium or similar 1 space per 4 seats based upon place of assembly
design capacity
Warehousing, storage or handling of bulk goods
1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to
storage of goods; plus appropriate spaces to support
accessory office or retail sales facilities at 1 space per
350 square feet of floor area
Page │ 5
III. CASE STUDIES SUMMARY
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
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 to apply lower minimum requirements to a broader range of commercial
and residential uses.
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 most cases,
encouraging development was a driving factor for the amendments. Communities also stated 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.
Page │ 6
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 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 Away’s
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.
Table 3, provides a quick reference summary of the key findings derived from the six case study cities
that have recently changed their parking development minimums.
Table 3: Case Study Summary Matrix – Peer City Review
CITY LAND USE PAST PARKING
STANDARDS
CURRENT
PARKING
STANDARDS
PRIMARY REASONS FOR CHANGE
Bellingham, WA Residential 1.5 per unit 1 per unit Simplify parking code for staff &
developers
Encourage alternative modes
Let market determine need
Commercial Dependent upon
use
1 per 500 SF
Billings, MT
(CBD & EBURD)
Residential 2 per dwelling unit 0 Encourage (more dense / high value)
downtown development
Facilitate redevelopment within URD
Commercial
(convenience
store)
1 per 80 SF 0
Dana Point, CA Residential 1 BR = 1.5
2 BR = 2.0
3+ BR = 2.5
1 BR = 1.0
2+ BR = 2.0
Shared parking
Joint use
Page │ 7
CITY LAND USE PAST PARKING
STANDARDS
CURRENT
PARKING
STANDARDS
PRIMARY REASONS FOR CHANGE
Commercial
(convenience
store)
Range:
1 per 75 SF to
1 per 2,000 SF
2.0 per 1,000 SF In‐lieu parking fees
Fargo, ND Residential 2 per unit 0 Encourage development and
redevelopment in downtown
Provide more flexibility for
development
Commercial Range:
0.5 per 1,000 SF
to 13 per 1,000 SF
0
Marquette, MI
(CBD)
Residential 2 per unit 2 per unit Attract businesses
Right‐size parking
Historic preservation
Commercial
(office)
6.6 per 1,000 SF 0
Mercer Island, WA Residential
(All unit sizes)
1 to 3 per unit 1 to 1.4 per unit Address growth
Right‐size parking
Ensure quality of life Commercial
(General)
3 to 5 per 1,000 SF 2 to 3 per 1,000 SF
IV. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS (Bozeman)
The parking demand analysis examined the differential between the actual built‐supply and the peak
hour demand for parking for specific land uses located in Bozeman. Table 4 and Figure A (next page)
provide graphic summaries of the findings.
Office Land Uses
The average built parking ratio for office uses is 4.65 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building
area.
The average true demand for parking for offices uses is 2.24 stalls per 1,000 square feet of
occupied building area.3
3 True demand is the ratio of actual vehicles parked in the peak hour correlated to actual occupied building area.
“True Parking Demand”: The observed highest demand for parking during an expected peak hour period
for a given land use site.
“True Parking Demand Ratio”: The correlation between observed highest demand for parking during an
expected peak period for a given land use site and the floor area of the subject building. The average of
several sites’ true demand ratios for a particular land use produces the average true demand ratio.
Average true demand ratios have traditionally been used as a base standard for setting parking
minimums. An industry best practice is to use local observed demand ratios rather than generic national
data, as they provide a more accurate representation of actual parking usage.
Page │ 8
The average true parking demand ratio for office use (2.24) is 52% lower than the existing built
ratio (4.65).
Table 4: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluations – Land Use Category Comparison
Land Use
Category
Average Built
parking ratio
Average
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Average
Code
Maximum
Averaged
True
Demand
Average
Delta +/_
Average %
Difference
Office
per 1,000 SF
4.65 4.27 5.33 2.24 2.41 52%
Restaurant
per 1,000 SF
7.54 12.00 15.00 5.02 2.52 33%
Hotel
per room
1.11 1.10 1.21 0.74 0.37 33%
Residential
per unit
1.37 1.60 3.00 1.37 0 0%
Retail
per 1,000 SF
4.47 3.33 4.16 1.94 2.53 57%
Mixed Use
per 1,000 SF
2.61 3.66 4.71 2.15 0.46 18%
Figure A: Parking Demand Ratios ‐ Land Use Category Comparison
4.65
7.54
1.11 1.37
4.47
2.61
2.24
5.02
0.74 1.37
1.94 2.15
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
OFFICE RESTAURANT HOTEL RESIDENTIAL RETAIL MIXED USE
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND
EVALUATION
LAND USE CATEGORY COMPARISON
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
Page │ 9
Restaurant (Freestanding) Land Uses
The average built parking ratio for restaurant uses is 7.54 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building
area.
The average true demand for parking for restaurant uses is 5.02 stalls per 1,000 square feet of
occupied building area.
The average true parking demand ratio for freestanding restaurant uses (5.02) is 33% lower
than the existing built ratio (7.54).
Hotel Land Uses
The average built parking ratio for hotel uses is 1.11 stalls per bedroom.
The average true demand for parking for hotel uses is 0.74 stalls per occupied room.
The average true parking demand ratio for hotel uses (0.74) is 33% lower than the existing built
ratio (1.11).
Residential Land Uses
The average built parking ratio for residential uses is 1.37 stalls per unit.
The average true demand for parking for residential uses is 1.37 stalls per unit, the same as the
average built ratio.
The average true parking demand ratio for residential uses (1.37) is the existing built ratio (1.37),
but still 17% lower than the average minimum parking requirement (1.604).
Retail Land Uses
The average built parking ratio for retail uses is 4.47 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
The average true demand for parking for retail uses is 1.94 stalls per 1,000 square feet of
occupied building area.
The average true parking demand ratio for retail uses (1.94) is 57% lower than the existing built
ratio (4.47).
4 Minimum residential parking requirements were simplified (averaged) for illustrative purposes. Based on Table
38.25.040-1 (in R-5 and B-2M districts) A) Efficiency Unit: 1.0 B) One-bedroom: 1.25 C) Two-bedroom: 1.75 D)
Three-bedroom: 2.5 E) Dwellings with more than three bedrooms: 3.
Page │ 10
Mixed Uses
The average built parking ratio for mixed uses is 2.61 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building
area.
The average true demand for parking for retail uses is 2.15 stalls per 1,000 square feet of
occupied building area.
The average true parking demand ratio for retail uses (2.15) is 18% lower than the existing built
ratio (2.61).
Data suggests that parking, on average, has been built well in excess of exhibited demand, with the
exception of residential uses5. Particularly office (52%) and retail (57%) uses have corresponding off‐
street parking supplies that are built at double the capacity of what is actually needed. These findings in
combination with what was learned in the case studies form the basis for some recommended
recalibrations of the existing parking development requirements. Those recommendations are
provided in the following section.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the analysis of recently collected local parking demand
data for specific land use categories and a thorough assessment of similar ‘right‐size parking’ actions
taken by peer cities. There are two approaches the City can take as regards its parking minimums, these
include:
Eliminate minimum parking requirements for commercial development; a market‐based
approach that allows the local economic environment to influence the economics and access
realities of a development project.
Maintain parking minimums; reducing them to better reflect current demand and collapsing
the minimum for commercial uses (office, retail and mixed‐use) to a single blended rate of 2.0
per 1,000 square feet.
Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements
Minimum parking requirements are so prevalent that eliminating them may seem like heresy, but these
requirements may be limiting redevelopment or increasing the cost of providing affordable housing. In
some situations, the best way to address this is simply to eliminate minimum parking requirements for
certain land uses or certain areas, such as in a downtown or commercial corridors, near transit stations,
or for affordable housing developments.
5 The parking demand analysis for residential uses also included properties without any off-street parking, which
significantly affects the average built ratio. According to Bozeman’s existing municipal code no residential development
could be built today without the provision of off-street parking.
Page │ 11
The key to success when eliminating minimum parking requirements is to minimize the potential for
spillover effects ‐ this is, after all, what the minimum requirements are intended to do ‐ and ensure that
there are other ways for people to access the site. Having some parking garages or lots nearby that are
not at full capacity and access to the site via non‐auto modes increase the chances of success. However,
even if those pieces are in place, there will likely still be a need to control spillover effects. One of the
main concerns is generally spillover into nearby residential neighborhoods' on‐street parking. This can
be addressed with a residential permit parking program. Residents may resist the transition to permit
parking, but one way to win them over is through residential parking benefit districts, which charge
non‐residents to park in unused resident spaces, and invest some of the revenue in neighborhood
improvement projects.
On non‐residential streets, eliminating minimum parking requirements without actively managing on‐
street parking can lead to a shortage of curb parking spaces, and the associated problems with drivers
circling endlessly seeking a space. One solution is to charge for on-street parking. The revenue
collected from on‐street meters can be used to pay for the costs of operating parking and for other
congestion management‐related activities. If the district is hesitant to install meters, the municipality
may be able to invest part of the revenue from the meters in transportation demand management and
parking related improvements in the affected area.
Another concern is that if new developments (or redevelopments) are not required to provide parking
where previous developments were, the burden of providing parking may be unfairly distributed on the
properties that have been there longer. If this is a concern, one alternative is to maintain required
minimums but allow developers to pay a fee or cash in lieu of each required space not provided, with
the fees to be used for providing public parking. Another alternative is to allow those with an existing
parking supply that exceeds their needs to rent or sell it to newcomers who can't add parking to their
sites. In some cases, developers may be constrained by requirements from lenders that they provide a
certain amount of parking.
If the community is not ready to drop minimum parking requirements altogether, other options include
establishing flexible parking requirements, setting parking maximums in addition to minimums,
allowing spaces to be held in landscaped reserves, and allowing developers to pay a fee in lieu of
providing spaces.
Table 6 provides a summary of the pros and cons associated with eliminating minimum parking
requirements.
Page │ 12
Table 5: Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements – Pro & Cons
Pros Cons
Provision of parking is governed by the marketplace;
the number of stalls built is more optimally sized for
the land use
Potential spillover into nearby districts and onto
existing parking facilities.
Lowers development costs, spurring redevelopment No opportunity for cash in lieu if City is seeking
revenue sources for sharing the cost of parking
through public/private partnerships.
Streamlined permitting process. Elimination of code
provisions related to allowed exceptions, adjustments
and waivers to minimums.
Some users may to have to park further away and walk
to reach their destination
Maximizes parcel development area; reduces the ‘sea
of surface parking’ effect; promotes a more walkable
urban form
More constrained on‐street parking; visitors circling
looking for parking
Promotes and incents alternative mode providers to
enter or expand into a market (e.g., transit, biking,
walking)
Maximizes parcel development area; reduces the ‘sea
of surface parking’ effect; promotes a more walkable
urban form
City must support greater enforcement of the on‐
street supply (e.g., enforcement personnel and
potential establishment of parking districts –
residential permit systems for on‐street supplies).
More supportive of structured parking given the
expense of building structured versus surface parking.
Eliminating minimums does not prevent developers
from providing parking, nor assume that parking will
not be provided.
Maintain Minimums – Recalibrate into Blended Commercial Rate
The following recommendations provide insight into potential modifications of existing requirements
by land use category. One recommendation calls for the consolidation of (some) commercial land use
classifications into a blended rate, others call for specific reductions in minimum requirements based on
findings from local data and similar code recalibrations made by peer cities.
A. Combine required off‐street minimum parking development ratios for commercial uses
(office, retail, and mixed use) into a single blended rate of 2.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet.
This process simplifies the parking development code (a strategy employed by the City of
Bellingham, Washington) by collapsing the mixed use, office, and retail land use classifications
and their sub‐classifications into a single blended commercial land use category. Exemptions
from this category include hotel uses (see Recommendation B) and freestanding restaurant
uses (Recommendation C).
Page │ 13
The parking demand analysis shows that office uses have an average true demand ratio of 2.24
vehicles per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area. Similarly, findings from the demand
analysis show that retail uses have an average true demand ratio of 1.94 vehicles per 1,000
square feet of occupied building area. Furthermore, mixed use sites have an average true
demand ratio of 2.15 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area. These results and
the resulting recommendation are summarized in Table 6, below. It should be further noted
that this recommendation is only a minimum; developers can elect to build in excess of the
minimum if they believe the development necessitates it.
While the demand figures both exceed and fall short of the ratio recommendation, a close
approximation of 2.0 stalls/1,000 SF is suggested for code simplicity, which is within a close
fraction of true demand. Examples from the case study work show blended commercial parking
rates for Bellingham, WA and Dana Point, CA at 2.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
More aggressive changes were made in Billings, Fargo, and Marquette where they eliminated
minimum parking requirements entirely.
Table 6: Bozeman Midtown – Recommended Minimum Parking Ratios – Commercial Uses
Existing
Land Use
Classifications
Average Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Averaged True
Demand
Recommended
Land Use
Classification
Recommended
Minimum
Parking Ratio6
Office 4.27 2.24
Commercial 2.00 Retail 3.33 1.94
Mixed Use 3.66 2.15
B. Reduce required off‐street minimum parking development ratios for hotel land uses to 0.80
stalls per room.
The parking demand analysis shows that hotel uses have an average true demand ratio of 0.74
vehicles per occupied hotel room7. Hotels experience seasonal variation in vacancy rates,
however the parking demand analysis correlates parked cars to occupied rooms, as such the
average true demand figure is representative of the hotel’s parking load on both slow and busy
days. The Midtown corridor has a large number of hotel locations, a recalibrated minimum may
help reduce the number of surplus stalls built for future hotel developments.
C. Reduce required off‐street minimum parking development ratios for freestanding
restaurant uses to 5.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet.
6 Ratios are shown as per 1,000 square feet of building area.
7 This ratio includes parking demand generated by hotel staff and guests.
Page │ 14
The parking demand analysis shows that restaurant uses have an average true demand ratio of
5.02 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of building area. The parking demand analysis showed the
average restaurant with a built parking supply of 7.54 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Despite this
finding existing code requires restaurant uses to build at a minimum ratio of 12.0 stalls per
1,000 square feet. This requirement is 240% higher than the average exhibited demand. This
parking requirement should be recalibrated to avoid future developments built with an excess
of unused parking stalls. Ideally restaurant uses would be incorporated into mixed use
developments with other use types such as retail and office. The most efficiently used parking is
when complementary uses share the same parking supply, reducing the need for excess or
higher ratio requirements.
D. Reduce required off‐street minimum parking development ratios for Residential land uses
to 1.0 stall per unit.
The parking demand analysis shows that residential uses have an average true demand ratio of
1.37 vehicles per unit. The existing average parking minimum required by code is 1.60 per unit
(units have stratified parking requirements with increased minimums based on the number of
bedrooms). This action simplifies the minimum to 1 stall per unit. As a comparison Bellingham,
Washington reduced their minimums from 1.5 stalls per unit to 1.0 stall per unit, whereas both
Billings and Fargo eliminated residential minimums outright. Along with the implementation of
this recommendation the City should consider refining and clarifying reduction bonuses related
to the residential ratio (using local data). Again, this is a minimum requirement and developers
can elect to build additional parking if they believe it will make the development more
marketable.
This recommendation should be coupled with strategies that are consistent with the City’s goal
of encouraging alternative mode use – provision of bicycle parking, access to transit, and
carsharing opportunities. These efforts can help reduce end‐of‐trip parking demand and
provide a viable transportation alternative for those who elect to use them.
Page │ 15
Table 7: Reducing Minimum Parking Requirements – Pro & Cons
Pros Cons
Simplifies code by reducing the number of specific
land use standards
Adjustments, waivers and exceptions remain, which
adds time and cost to the development application (for
both City and developer).
Appropriately calibrates new standards to local land
use data.
As alternative mode use increases, new minimum’s
become outdated over time. Need to be recalibrated
through periodic review.
May encourage users to share supply Surface lots will likely be more prevalent than under
the no minimum approach.
May be more palatable to adjacent neighborhoods.
Promotes a more compact urban form. Sets a minimum standard that may or may not be the
most efficient for new development.
Lowering minimums still allows developers to provide
more than the minimum.
Developers may still want adjustments, waivers and
exceptions to provide less parking.
Minimizes parking spillover effect as compared to no
minimums
Any reduction in minimums requires appropriate
enforcement of the public right of way by the City.
VI. SUMMARY
This memorandum summarizes a thorough evaluation of Bozeman’s parking requirements and actual
demand for parking derived from local sources. It also provides insights into the efforts of other peer
cities that have looked at and recalibrated parking standards downward to better reflect actual market
conditions. Based on this evaluation, recommendations are made to reduce or eliminate current
minimum parking standards to better reflect local conditions.
Page │ 16 Case Study: Summary Matrix 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.billings.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_ordinances Commercial (convenience store) 1 per 80 SF No minimum 100% Dana Point, CA Shayne Sharke; 949.248.3567; ssharke@DanaPoint.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/department/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@cityoffargo.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/attachments/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+% Marquette, MI (CBD) Mona Lang; 906.228.9475; Mlang@downtowResidential 2 per unit 2 per unit 0% N Attract businesses Right‐size parking Multiple parking studies showed over supply Y http://www.mqtcty.org/Government/Code/80_ zoning20160720.pdf Commercial 6.6 per 1,000 No minimum 100+%
Page │ 17 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 nmarquette.org (office) SF Historic preservation More intensive/ compact land use equal more econ. activity Mercer Island, WA Jeff Arrango; 206.493.2384; jeff@berkconsulting.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%