HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A2. Midtown Parking Standards Policy DiscussionMemorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: David Fine, Economic Development Specialist Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director
Martin Matsen, Community Development Director
Ed Meece, Parking Program Manager
SUBJECT: Commission Policy Discussion and Direction on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
MEETING DATE: May 1, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends advancing Option A, which proposes a blended-rate parking minimum
for most commercial uses, requires a minimum of one (1) space per unit for residential uses, and proposes new minimums for hotel and stand-alone restaurant uses.
Consider the Motion:
I move to direct Economic Development, Community Development, and Parking Staff to draft changes to the Bozeman Municipal Code for future consideration amending the text of the
Unified Development Code and the B-2M zoning designation to codify the parking standards
presented in Option A and to propose other code changes so as to make the proposed policy
functional in the context of existing code.
BACKGROUND:
The City created the B-2M zoning designation during the first phase of the update of
Unified Development Code (UDC) in spring 2016. The previous B-2 zoning did not encourage
the redevelopment of the Midtown corridor in the manner envisioned in the area’s adopted neighborhood plan, the Design and Connectivity Plan for the N. 7th Corridor (2006). This plan
specifically called for mixed-use development with “commercial services on the main level
fronting the corridor, with residential uses above and behind.” The previous B-2 zoning
contained yard and setback provisions that made the development of buildings fronting the street
difficult, especially given the shallow lots along the corridor. The new B-2M code allows new buildings to be built near the street, encourages ground floor commercial, and requires that parking occur on the side or the rear of structures. The goal is to enhance the pedestrian
138
Memorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
2
experience along the corridor by reducing the amount of parking in front of and around
buildings. These changes were consistent with two goals of the 2015 Midtown Urban Renewal
Plan included promoting “Human Scale Urban Design” and supporting “Urban Density Mixed
Land Uses”. City code consultants conducted market analysis for the Midtown of different
development types to assess whether the new B-2M code would function in the marketplace.
Makers Architecture, the firm hired to update the UDC and create appropriate new zoning
districts for Midtown in 2016, brought in Leland Consulting Group (LGC) – a planning group
with expertise in the market, financial, and economic elements of redevelopment projects – to test the proposed new code to ensure that it would not impede investment in the kinds of projects
envisioned by City’s planning documents. Leland created five hypothetical projects at five
possible redevelopment sites along the corridor. Four of the five hypothetical projects failed to
produce the base returns on investment necessary to allow redevelopment. Leland identified the
City’s suburban parking “minimums” as a significant factor in why urban density mixed use projects were not feasible in most Midtown sites. They suggested that changing the minimums to
more accurately reflect real parking demand, or eliminating minimums entirely, would likely be
necessary to make possible the kind of redevelopment proposed in adopted plans.
Though moving from car dominated suburban-style development to a more compact
urban form is a stated goal of the 2006 and 2015 urban renewal plans, and the N. 7th neighborhood plan, the new B-2M zoning did little to alter suburban style parking minimums applied outside the downtown core, beyond slight adjustments to residential minimums (The
City Commission did exempt the first 3000 square feet of commercial space from parking
requirements.). At joint meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commissions on March 22, 2016
and April 5, 2016, board members expressed concern that the high levels of required parking
were an impediment to redevelopment. City staff was reluctant to change parking standards
without measured parking analysis that was beyond the scope of Maker’s contract. With new buildings, mistakes may last decades and it was worth the time to study parking alternatives and
propose a better solution. Final adoption of the B-2M zoning code proceeded with small changes
to the parking standards with the understanding that the Midtown Urban Renewal District would
fund a parking study and return with a plan for better parking standards for the B-2M zone based
on thoughtful analysis. This presentation and policy discussion is the culmination of that effort.
Methodology
Staff engaged Leland Consulting Group with Rick Williams Consulting (RWC) (the firm
that conducted the Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan) retained as a sub consultant to investigate parking standard alternatives in the context of removing barriers to redevelopment
in Midtown. The team proposed a two part strategy of using a case study approach to look at
how and why some communities implemented progressive parking policies and assess the
outcomes following implementation. Communities were chosen in collaboration with the
Community Development Department based on at least one of a few characteristics such as size, or cold winters, or a university community. While we selected case studies to inform our
recommendations, RWC also collected data at 30 local sites for retail, office, mixed use, hotel
and standalone restaurant land uses to get preliminary data for testing how these options might
work in Bozeman. Policy options presented by the consultants are based on the findings of the
case study data.
139
Memorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
3
OPTIONS
OPTION A: Maintain Minimums – Recalibrate into Blended Commercial Parking
Minimums, Fixed Residential Minimum
City Land Use Proposed
New Minimums
Bozeman, Montana Commercial 2.0 per 1000 SF
Restaurant (stand-alone) 5.0 per 1000 SF
OPTION A (B-2M) Hotel 0.8 per room
Residential 1 per unit
Bellingham, WA (pop. 85,146), Dana Point, CA (pop. 35,100), and Mercer Island, WA (pop. 22,699) moved to simplify their commercial parking minimums by utilizing a single blended rate for most commercial uses. Buildings often last more than 50 years; tenants,
however, do not share this longevity. Blended rate parking minimums allows buildings to be
constructed with parking that is flexible for a variety of uses rather than the current practice of
constructing parking based on the original use of the building tenants. Residential units would be required to provide off street parking at the rate of one (1) space for each unit. This minimum may ensure that housing prices are not inflated by requiring the provision of more parking than
there may be residents in any given unit. Developers could always choose to provide more
parking than required by these minimums, up to a specified maximum. If a blended rate is a
approved, code amendments altering the existing maximum will be required. If the Commission selects Option A, staff will recommend removing the broad range of parking reductions available to developers in the current B-2M zoning designation. Staff also
propose that all of the required commercial and residential parking should be provided off street
either onsite or at another property, within 1000 feet of the proposed project. On street spaces
could not be counted toward satisfying the blended rate minimum. Blended rate minimums provide certainty for neighbors and developers. Neighbors benefit from the understanding that a new building will provide a base level of parking to meet
its needs, thereby minimizing overflow into surrounding neighborhoods. Developers can
construct a building that can accommodate a variety of users and their parking needs over the
useful life of the building. Developers also benefit from being able to calculate their parking requirements at the beginning of the entitlement process rather than applying for reductions that are not know to be approved until the end of the entitlement process.
Staff prefers Option A for the following reasons:
• This program simplifies the development review process for the Community Development Department
• The case study analysis demonstrated that the new minimum standards are effective in
stimulating new development interest in Bellingham’s “urban village” areas.
• Data analysis indicates that these minimums are appropriate for the mixed-use projects encouraged by the N. 7th Neighborhood Plan and the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan.
• Requiring the provision of some parking lessens the burden of active management and
enforcement that other solutions may require.
140
Memorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
4
The RWC Parking Assessment Summary and Recommendations Report provides a list of pros
and cons for the blended rate minimum recommendation (pp. 12-15).
OPTION B: Eliminate Minimum Parking Standards
City Population Land Use Parking Minimums
Billings, MT 104,172 Commercial No minimum
Residential No minimum
Missoula, MT 69,122 Commercial No minimum
Residential No minimum
Fargo, ND 118,523 Commercial No minimum
Residential No minimum
Marquette, MI 21,000 Commercial No minimum
Residential 2 per unit
Bozeman, MT 43,405 Commercial No minimum
OPTION B (B-2M) Residential No minimum
Elimination of minimum parking standards is an increasingly common practice in central business districts of mid-sized cities. Among the case study cities, Billings, Fargo, and Marquette
eliminated minimum parking requirements for commercial uses. Billings, Fargo, and Missoula,
MT have also eliminated residential parking minimums in addition to commercial minimums in
these districts. Increasing redevelopment in their urban cores is a shared goal across the cities
that eliminated parking minimums. These cities all share colder climates and college student populations.
Eliminating minimums eases the sharing of parking among compatible uses. There are
substantial incentives for developers not to under-provide parking. Inadequately parked buildings
are less desirable in the marketplace and may undermine the expected return on capital. If the
need for individually owned automobiles decreases in the future, cities without minimums cannot be accused of causing the oversupply of parking. Perhaps, more significantly, research
demonstrates the peril of creating minimum parking standards based on a perceived correlation
between land use and floor area. In “Roughly Right or Precisely Wrong”, Donald Shoup, a
professor of urban planning at the University of California – Los Angeles, cites the lack of a
statistically significantly relationship between vehicle trips, or parking demand and the floor area of particular land uses (2002, p. 22).
Eliminating minimums is also more practical in areas with alternatives to private vehicle
travel and private parking. For example, Midtown – where it is zoned B-2M – is more pedestrian
friendly than many parts of Bozeman and can currently cite Walk Scores of 91 at its southern
end and 51 at its northern end. Streamline Bus routes traverse about half of the N. 7th Corridor included in B-2M, and the Midtown Urban Renewal Board (MURB) is working with the
Montana Department of Transportation to add another stop on the southern end of the corridor.
The MURB is also developing separated bike paths and the addition of bike lanes to N. 7th is a
mid-term goal. The Midtown Urban Renewal District can also purchase land for public surface
lots or structured parking facilities as demand grows. These efforts are part of a long term solution and would not address immediate growth in parking demand in the short term.
141
Memorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
5
Staff is not advocating for eliminating commercial or residential minimums at this time.
If the market is attempting to determine the appropriate provision of parking, it is necessary to
define the conditions in which investors make these determinations: What parking is available if
it is not provided on site? The elimination of parking minimums usually requires the implementation of active parking management, such as regulating on-street parking and creating
residential parking districts. The establishment of residential parking districts may assuage
neighborhood concerns about eliminating minimums. Staff, however, is concerned about
resource demand on its financially strained Parking Division, and creating a funding stream for
this activity. Neighbors may object to paying for protection they do not need when faced with residential permit fees adequate to cover the cost of the program in advance of citation revenue
from any parking supply problem in Midtown.
OPTION C: The Midtown Urban Renewal Board’s Hybrid Approach
City Land Use Proposed
New Minimums
Bozeman, Montana Commercial No minimum
B-2M Zoning Restaurant (stand-alone) 5.0 per 1000 SF
Midtown URB Hotel 0.8 per room
OPTION C (B-2M) Residential 1.25 per unit
The Midtown Urban Renewal Board reviewed the proposed recommendations for code
modifications. The Board voted in favor of a hybrid between Option A and Option B: Eliminate commercial minimums, retain Option A’s new minimum standards for hotel and stand-alone
restaurant uses, and increase the minimum requirement for residential to 1.25 spaces per unit.
The Board provided a memorandum explaining their recommendation, which is included in the
packet.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Commission.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Commission provides direction to move forward with a particular policy, staff
will draft code language reflecting that policy into the B-2M zoning designation in the Unified Development Code. Staff will follow all of the appropriate public outreach and notice
requirements for a zone text amendment as required by state statute and the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Leland Consulting Group Cover Letter
2. RWC City of Bozeman – Midtown Parking Assessment Summary and
Recommendations
3. RWC City of Bozeman – Parking Standards – Case Studies 4. RWC Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation Summary
142
Memorandum for City Commission Policy Discussion on Midtown (B-2M) Parking Standards
6
5. Leland Consulting Group, Financial Models and Analysis (2016)
LINKS: (2017, April 8). How not to create traffic jams, pollution and urban sprawl,
The Economist
Map: Progress on removing parking minimums. (2017). Strong Towns
143
People Places Prosperity | www.lelandconsulting.com 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 1008, Portland, Oregon 97205 | 503.222.1600
April 17, 2017
Mr. David Fine
Economic Development Specialist
City of Bozeman
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: Midtown Parking Requirements
Dear Mr. Fine:
As you are aware, Leland Consulting Group and our team members, Sanderson Stewart, A&E Architecture, and Rick
Williams Consulting are currently working with city staff, across several departments, to develop key strategies and
investments that will encourage redevelopment within the Midtown corridor, which will achieve several city urban
renewal goals including:
• Encourage active transportation including bike, pedestrian and transit mode that is desired by the
community and reduces carbon emissions
• Foster a more compact urban form that supports these active transportation modes and makes for a vibrant
community desired by residents
• Improve appearance and value of blighted properties
It is important to note that sustainable and substantial redevelopment only occurs with significant private investment.
Therefore, throughout the course of this project our top priority is to define barriers to private investment and remove
them if possible. As we noted throughout this process and prior work for the city, excessive minimum parking
requirements can be barrier to development as it increases construction costs for improvements that may not be
desired by the market. This is especially true for the Midtown District, which consists of smaller parcels under multiple
ownerships and makes consolidation into larger sites for development challenging. Larger sites typically allow for
more flexibility in site design that can accommodate larger parking requirements and building footprints.
Furthermore, the current requirements that lead to the provision of excess parking creates vacant asphalt spaces
throughout the district that detracts from the vibrancy of the area. To achieve pedestrian activity, a corridor must
consist of more developed space than vacant parking surface areas. As indicated in the peer city review analysis, this
desire for a vibrant commercial area was achieved by reducing the minimum parking requirements, which is often a
barrier to development. For this reason, we believe the recommended parking minimums are an important element
of the overall Midtown District strategy to encourage private investment, which ultimately achieves many of the city’s
envisioned goals.
We look forward to discussing this proposal in more depth with the City Commission on May 1st.
Sincerely,
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
Alisa Pyszka
Senior Associate
144
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.
145
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)
146
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
147
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
148
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.
149
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
150
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.
151
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
EVALUATIONLAND USE CATEGORY COMPARISON
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
152
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.
153
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.
154
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 5 provides a summary of the pros and cons associated with eliminating minimum parking
requirements.
155
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).
156
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.
157
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.
158
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.
159
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.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+%
Marquette,
MI (CBD)
Mona Lang;
906.228.9475;
Mlang@downtow
Residential 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+%
160
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@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%
161
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?
162
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).
163
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.
164
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.
165
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
166
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
167
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.
168
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.
169
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
170
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
171
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
172
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.
173
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
174
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.
175
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
176
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.
177
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.
178
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
179
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
180
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.
181
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
182
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
183
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.
184
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+%
185
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%
186
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 1
2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation Summary (April 2017)
Purpose
The Midtown corridor just west of Downtown Bozeman is an urban renewal area in
transition. The commercial corridor is dotted with retail, restaurants, and service-based
businesses set back from the five lane road (7th Avenue) that separates one side from the
other. Unlike Main Street, surface parking dominates the landscape.
Rick Williams Consulting (RWC) was hired 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
utilization.
The findings from this assessment combined with case studies (peer reviews) of similar sized cities (future
memorandum) will inform future recommendations made to the City of Bozeman for adjusting parking
development ratios. Such recommendations are intended to ‘right-size’ the parking supply by directing
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 use. Refinements to parking development ratios
can help spur development by reducing the onus of building costly and unnecessary, maximizing leasable
building area where the return on investment is higher. This could result in more profitable developments and
provide a more attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment for the City and patrons of Midtown.
187
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 2
Methodology
The consultant team worked with the City to select a number of land uses for which to
observe parking demand utilization. Sampled selections were chosen to provide several
examples of uses (businesses or residences) representing a cross section of land use types
both within the corridor and those envisioned for Midtown – retail, restaurant, office
(including medical office), hotel, mixed use, institutional, and residential. Each site’s
parking supply was inventoried in advance of the demand analysis, quantifying the
numbers of stalls serving each location (visitor and employee parking). Surveyors counted
occupied parking stalls during peak periods for each property to determine the uses’
highest individual parking demand. In some cases vehicles parked on-street were also
included as part of the demand counts if it was evident the drivers were patronizing,
residing or employed at the property.
Parking development requirements are expressed as ratios of stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area
or stalls per residential unit. As such, the analysis requires information specific to the total building square
footage for each survey site. RWC searched Montana Cadastral and commercial and residential real estate
sites to derive the most accurate information possible. During the data collection process surveyors were
careful to note any tenant vacancy observations. Where vacancies exist property owners were contacted to
determine the amount of unleased space. Calculating ‘true’ parking demand ratios required factoring out
any vacancies, so total parked cars were correlated only to occupied building square footage.
This is the same methodology employed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to calculate
parking demand by land use category, which has been the de facto metric used by jurisdictions across
America for their municipal parking requirements. While this is a good starting point, the ITE information
draws its examples from across America, which can include demand figures that date back as far as the
1980s. The methodology used for this study exclusively utilizes local Bozeman data gathered in November
(2016), which provides the most accurate and true representation of existing conditions on the ground
today.
188
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 3
Findings
Findings in the following section are shown as demand ratios for individual properties within a common land use group, both graphically
(charts) and in tabular format (tables). At the end of the section an aggregated table depicts average parking demand ratios by land use group,
which can then be the first step in determining a blended parking ratio across all land use types.
Office Land Uses
Figure A: Parking Demand Ratios - Office
From the office land use analysis the following results can be derived:
3.75
2.88 3.08
5.97
7.58
2.25 1.97 1.15
2.04
3.79
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
BRIDGER EYECARE OPPORTUNITY
BANK
INSURANCE
UNLIMITED
ABSAROKA/
PROGRESSIVE/
BOZEMAN
SYMPHONY
BROWN
DINWIDDIE &
MAZUREK PLLC
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: OFFICE (STALLS PER 1,000 SF)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
189
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 4
• Built parking ratios vary widely in the office category from as little as 2.88 stalls per 1,000 square feet (Opportunity Bank) to as much as
7.58 stalls per 1,000 square feet (Brown, Dinwiddie & Mazurek).
• The average built parking ratio for office uses is 4.65 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
• True parking demand ratios have less variation ranging from 3.79 vehicles per 1,000 square feet (Brown, Dinwiddie & Mazurek) to 1.15
vehicles per 1,000 square feet (Insurance Unlimited).
• The average true demand for parking for offices uses is 2.24 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area.
• A 15% buffer was added to true demand numbers to allow for the ebb and flow of customers/visitors within the off-street parking
supply. This supports the concept of an 85% occupancy threshold (industry standard) for a customer or visitor parking supply. Adding a
15% buffer to the average true demand figure (2.24) results in a market-calibrated 2.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space (i.e.,
average actual demand for parking).
• The recalibrated office parking demand ratio of 2.50 is 45% lower than the existing average built supply (4.65).
• Based on these findings, these developments significantly oversupplied parking for the land use actually built.
Table 1: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Office Land Use
Business Name Business Type
Building
Square
Footage
Built
Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Bridger Eyecare Medical Office 2,668 10 3.75 6.00 7.50 2.25 2.59 1.16 31%
Opportunity Bank Bank 15,256 44 2.88 3.33 4.16 1.97 1.88 1.00 35%
Insurance Unlimited Office 2,600 8 3.08 4.00 5.00 1.15 1.33 1.75 57%
Absaroka/ Progressive/
Bozeman Symphony
Office - multi
tenant 21,600 129 5.97 4.00 5.00 2.04 2.34 3.63 61%
Brown Dinwiddie & Office 1,320 10 7.58 4.00 5.00 3.79 4.36 3.22 43%
190
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 5
Business Name Business Type
Building
Square
Footage
Built
Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Mazurek PLLC
Average Parking
Ratios 4.65 2.24 2.50 2.15 45%
Restaurant Land Uses
Figure B: Parking Demand Ratios - Restaurant
12.38
10.97
5.47
3.85 5.01
8.09
4.42 4.38
1.65
6.57
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
APPLEBEES FAMOUS DAVE'S BAMBOO GARDEN
ASIAN
GRILL/IWIRELESS
BAR 3 BBQ MIDTOWN TAVERN
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: RESTAURANT (STALLS PER 1,000 SF)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
191
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 6
From the restaurant land use analysis the following results can be derived:
• Built parking ratios vary widely in the restaurant category from as little as 3.85 stalls per 1,000 square feet (Bar 3 BBQ) to as much as
12.38 stalls per 1,000 square feet (Applebees).
• Restaurant uses (outside of downtowns) on average, have higher demand ratios than most other types of land uses; particularly when
they are a free-standing use versus a component of a mixed use site.
• The average built parking ratio for restaurant uses is 7.54 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
• True parking demand ratios have less variation ranging from 1.65 vehicles per 1,000 square feet (Bar 3 BBQ) to 8.09 vehicles per 1,000
square feet (Applebees).
• The average true demand for parking for restaurant uses is 5.02 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area.
• Similarly a 15% buffer was added to true demand numbers to allow for the ebb and flow of customers/visitors within the off-street
parking supply. Adding a buffer to the average true demand figure (5.02) results in a market-calibrated 5.16 stalls per 1,000 square feet
of restaurant space (i.e., equates to total square footage of the restaurant, not just dining room area).
• The recalibrated restaurant parking demand ratio of 5.16 is 29% lower than the existing built supply (7.54).
• As with office uses (above) restaurants have generally overbuilt actual parking supply versus actual need for parking.
Table 2: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Restaurant Land Use
Business Name Business
Type
Building
Square
Footage
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Applebees Restaurant 6,056 75 12.38 12.00 15.00 8.09 9.30 3.08 25%
Famous Dave's Restaurant 6,564 72 10.97 12.00 15.00 4.42 5.08 5.89 54%
Bamboo Garden Asian
Grill/iWireless
Restaurant -
retail 6,397 35 5.47 12.00 15.00 4.38 3.78 1.70 31%
192
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 7
Bar 3 BBQ Restaurant
w/drive thru 1,820 7 3.85 12.00 15.00 1.65 1.90 1.95 51%
Midtown Tavern Restaurant 6,388 32 5.01 12.00 15.00 6.57 5.76 (0.75) -15%
Average Parking
Ratios 7.54 5.02 5.16 2.37 29%
Hotel Land Uses
Figure C: Parking Demand Ratios - Hotel
1.00 1.10
1.32
1.01
0.86
0.75
0.76
0.61
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
DAYS INN AND SUITES
BOZEMAN
LEWIS AND CLARK
MOTEL
HOMEWOOD SUITES COMFORT INN
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: HOTEL (STALLS PER ROOM)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
193
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 8
From the hotel land use analysis the following results can be derived:
• All true demand parking ratios for hotels were adjusted to account for vacancies. 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 variation in the built parking ratios in the hotel category is greatly diminished compared to other land use categories; ranging from
as little as 1.00 stall per room (Days Inn and Suites) to as much as 1.32 stalls per room (Homewood Suites).
• The average built parking ratio for hotel uses is 1.11 stalls per bedroom.
• True parking demand ratios for hotels are similar in that the variation between each example is minimal. The properties range from as
little as 0.61 vehicles per occupied room (Comfort Inn) to as much as 0.86 vehicles per occupied room (Days Inn and Suites).
• The average true demand for parking for hotel uses is 0.74 stalls per occupied room.
• A 10% buffer was added to average true demand parking numbers to allow for the ebb and flow of patrons within the off-street parking
supply. Hotel uses can support higher tolerances for parking availability during the peak period; as such a 10% buffer was added to the
average true parking demand (versus a 15% buffer for most other land uses). Adding the buffer results in a market-calibrated 0.82 stalls
per hotel room.
• The recalibrated hotel parking demand ratio of 0.82 is 25% lower than the existing built supply (1.11).
Table 3: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Hotel Land Use
Business
Name
Business
Type
Building
Square
Footage
Residential
Units /
Hotel
Rooms
Vacancy
Rate
Built
Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(10%)
Delta
+/_
%
Diff
Days Inn and
Suites
Bozeman
Hotel 10,323 113 39% 113 1.00 1.10 1.21 0.86 0.94 0.06 6%
Lewis and
Clark Motel Hotel 3,461 50 36% 55 1.10 1.10 1.21 0.75 0.83 0.28 25%
194
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 9
Homewood
Suites Hotel 8,643 102 37% 135 1.32 1.10 1.21 0.76 0.84 0.48 37%
Comfort Inn Hotel 8,603 122 18% 123 1.01 1.10 1.21 0.61 0.67 0.34 33%
Average
Parking
Ratio
Hotel 1.11 0.74 0.82 0.29 25%
Residential Land Uses
Figure D: Parking Demand Ratios - Residential
2.59
1.95
1.60
0.73
0.00
2.29
1.45 1.50 1.10
0.51
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
615/625 N 5TH
CONDOS
KIRBEY PLAZA BRIDGER ARMS
CONDOS
BLACKMORE
APARTMENTS
217 W KOCH ST
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL (STALLS PER UNIT)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
195
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 10
From the residential land use analysis the following results can be derived:
• Similar to hotel uses, the variation in the built parking ratios in the residential category is diminished compared to other land use
categories; ranging from as little as 0 stalls per unit (217 W Koch St) to as much as 2.59 stalls per unit (615/625 N 5th Condos).
• The average built parking ratio for residential uses is 1.37 stalls per unit.
• Two of the sample residential land uses were built with less than 1 stall per unit. One property has no off-street parking associated with
it (217 W Koch St).
• True parking demand ratios for residential properties range from as little as 0.51 vehicles per unit (217 W Koch St) to as much as 2.29
vehicles per unit (615/625 N 5th Condos).
• The average true demand for parking for residential uses is 1.37 stalls per unit, the same as the average built supply.
• Occupancy assumptions had to be made for properties with closed (inaccessible) garage doors – occupancies were assumed at 50%
accounting for storage of belongings or recreational space rather than automobile storage.
• A minimal 5% buffer was added to average true demand parking numbers to allow for some minor ebb and flow of residents within a
limited off-street parking supply. Residential uses (particularly rental units) can support the highest tolerance for parking availability
during peak periods; as such a 5% buffer was added to the average true parking demand. Adding the buffer results in a market-
calibrated 1.44 stalls per residential unit.
• The recalibrated residential parking demand ratio of 1.44 is 7% higher than the sampled built supply (1.37), but 10% lower than the
minimum parking requirement (1.601).
Table 4: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Residential Land Use
Business Name Business Type
Residential
Units /
Hotel
Rooms
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(5%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
1 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.
196
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 11
Business Name Business Type
Residential
Units /
Hotel
Rooms
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(5%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
615/625 N 5th
Condos Condos 22 57 2.59 1.60 3.00 2.29 2.41 0.19 7%
Kirbey Plaza Apartments 78 152 1.95 1.60 3.00 1.45 1.52 0.43 22%
Bridger Arms Condos Townhomes 10 16 1.60 1.60 3.00 1.50 1.58 0.02 2%
Blackmore
Apartments Apartments 33 24 0.73 1.60 3.00 1.10 1.15 -0.42 -58%
217 W Koch St Apartments 39 0 0.00 1.60 3.00 0.51 0.54 -0.54
Average Parking
Ratio Residential
1.37
1.37 1.44 -0.06 -7%
197
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 12
Retail Land Uses
Figure E: Parking Demand Ratios - Retail
From the retail land use analysis the following results and be derived:
• Built parking ratios vary widely in the retail category from as little as 1.25 stalls per 1,000 square feet (N2U Thrift) to as much as 9.58
stalls per 1,000 square feet (Verizon Wireless).
• The average built parking ratio for retail uses is 4.47 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
• True parking demand ratios have somewhat less variation ranging from 0.26 vehicles per 1,000 square feet (Rikki’s Furniture) to 5.00
vehicles per 1,000 square feet (Verizon Wireless).
2.86
7.34
1.32
9.58
1.251.14
2.54
0.26
5.00
0.760.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
AARON'S
APPLIANCES
ECKROTH MUSIC RIKKI'S
FURNITURE
GALLARY
VERIZON
WIRELESS
NU2U THRIFT
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: RETAIL (STALLS PER 1,000 SF)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
198
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 13
• The average true demand for parking for retail uses is 1.94 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area.
• A 15% buffer was added to average true demand numbers to allow for the ebb and flow of customers/visitors within the off-street
parking supply. Adding a buffer to the average true demand figure (1.94) results in a market-calibrated 2.23 stalls per 1,000 square feet
of retail space.
• The recalibrated retail parking demand ratio of 2.23 is 58% lower than the existing built supply (4.47).
Table 5: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Retail Land Use
Business Name Business
Type
Building
Square
Footage
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Aaron's Appliances Retail -
showroom 7,000 20 2.86 3.33 4.16 1.14 1.31 1.54 54%
Eckroth Music Retail 3,540 26 7.34 3.33 4.16 2.54 2.92 4.42 60%
Rikki's Furniture Gallery Retail 23,485 31 1.32 3.33 4.16 0.26 0.29 1.03 78%
Verizon Wireless Retail 2,400 23 9.58 3.33 4.16 5.00 5.75 3.83 40%
Nu2U Thrift Retail 14,400 18 1.25 3.33 4.16 0.76 0.88 0.37 30%
Average Parking Ratios Retail
4.47
1.94 2.23 2.24 58%
199
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 14
Mixed Uses
Figure F: Parking Demand Ratios - Mixed Use
From the mixed use demand analysis the following results and be derived:
• Observations of mixed use parking demand validated them as the land use category with the most efficient parking supply – where true
demand was closest to the built supply.
• Built parking ratios range from 2.08 stalls per 1,000 square feet (Cannery District) to as much as 3.46 stalls per 1,000 square feet
(Community Co-op).
• The average built parking ratio for mixed uses is relatively low at 2.61 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area.
2.52
2.86
2.65 2.70
2.08
3.46
1.96
2.86
1.76
1.18
1.38
3.75
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
SNOWLOAD
BUILDING
PARK PLACE
CONDOS
777 BUILDING M VIEW PLAZA CANNERY
DISTRICT
COMMUNITY
FOOD CO-OP
2016 BOZEMAN MIDTOWN PARKING DEMAND EVALUATION
LAND USE: MIXED USE (STALLS PER 1,000 SF)
Built Parking Ratio True Parking Demand Ratio
200
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 15
• True parking demand ratios range from 1.18 vehicles per 1,000 square feet (M View Plaza) to 3.75 vehicles per 1,000 square feet
(Community Co-op).
• The average true demand for parking for retail uses is 2.15 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied building area.
• A 15% buffer was added to true demand numbers to allow for the ebb and flow of customers/visitors within the off-street parking
supply. Adding a buffer to the true demand figure (2.15) results in a market-calibrated 2.47 stalls per 1,000 square feet of mixed use
space.
• The recalibrated retail parking demand ratio of 2.47 is 11% lower than the existing built supply (2.61).
Table 6: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Mixed Use
Business
Name Business Type
Building
Square
Footage
Residential
Units /
Hotel
Rooms
Vacancy
Rate
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Snowload
Building
Office/
Services 24,994 12% 63 2.52 3.33 4.16 1.96 2.25 0.27 11%
Park Place
Condos Office 10,500 40% 30 2.86 3.33 4.16 2.86 3.29 -0.43 -15%
Park Place
Condos Residential 16 32 2.00 1.60 3.00 ? ? ? ?
777 Building Office/ Retail 36,599 10% 97 2.65 4.00 5.00 1.76 2.02 0.63 24%
M View
Plaza
Office/ Retail/
Services 51,545 139 2.70 5.00 6.25 1.18 1.36 1.34 50%
Cannery
District
Office/Retail/
Restaurant/
Services
105,000 0% 218 2.08 5.00 6.25 1.38 1.59 0.49 24%
Community
Food Co-op
Grocery/
Restaurant/ 17,610 61 3.46 3.33 4.16 3.75 4.31 -0.85 -24%
201
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 16
Business
Name Business Type
Building
Square
Footage
Residential
Units /
Hotel
Rooms
Vacancy
Rate
Built Off-
Street
Stalls
Built
parking
ratio
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Code
Maximum
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
(15%)
Delta
+/_ % Diff
Coffee Shop
Average
Parking
Ratios
Mixed Use 2.61 2.15 2.47 0.24 11%
Land Use Category Comparison
Figure G: 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
202
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 17
From the land use category comparison the following results and be derived:
• Both office and retail uses are the most grossly overbuilt land use categories, with an average parking supply overbuild of 45% and 58%,
respectively. Base solely on observations related to this demand analysis parking minimums for Office should be reduced by 2.00 stalls
per 1,000 square feet (to 2.25); similarly Retail minimums (based solely on these observations) should be reduced by 1.40 stalls per
1,000 square feet (to 1.95).
• Mixed use developments are being built with parking supplies that most closely represent true demand – on average they are overbuilt
by 11%. Observations from this parking demand evaluation reveal that Mixed Use parking minimums should be reduced by 0.50 stalls
per 1,000 square feet (to 2.15 or 2.00).
• Hotel parking minimums could be reduced from their current level by 0.35 stalls per room, to 0.75 stalls per hotel room.
• Restaurant parking minimums could be reduced by nearly 7 stalls per 1,000 square feet, with current minimums at 12 per thousand and
true demand at 5 per thousand. Based solely on demand observations conducted during this evaluation, the new (stand-alone)
restaurant parking minimums could be reduced to 5.00 stalls per 1,000 square feet.
• To calculate residential demand, particularly for properties without off-street parking, some assumptions had to be made about
‘assigning’ vehicles to a residential property. It is not unusual to make this educated assumptions related to resident use/demand. As
such, the current minimum parking requirement for residential are high. It is recommended that the minimums be reduced to 1.00 stall
per unit and that the maximums are commensurately reduced to 2.25 stalls per unit.
• Determining a blended commercial minimum parking requirement is challenging, particularly in an area where shared parking is more
challenging and on-street parking is limited. Hotel, Residential, and stand-alone Restaurant should likely be evaluated using a separate
minimum parking scale. Office and Retail and Mixed Uses lend themselves more favorably to a blended rate. Based on observations
from this analysis these uses could have a reduced minimum parking requirement of 2.00 – 2.25 stalls per 1,000 square feet.
203
Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Assessment
Page 18
Table 7: 2016 Bozeman Midtown Parking Demand Evaluation – Land Use Category Comparison
Land Use
Category
Average Built
parking ratio
Average
Code
Minimum
w/bonuses
Average
Code
Maximum
Averaged
True
Demand
TD +
buffer
Average
Delta +/_
Average %
Difference
Office 4.65 4.27 5.33 2.24 2.50 2.15 45%
Restaurant 7.54 12.00 15.00 5.02 5.16 2.37 29%
Hotel 1.11 1.10 1.21 0.74 0.82 0.29 25%
Residential 1.37 1.60 3.00 1.37 1.44 -0.06 -7%
Retail 4.47 3.33 4.16 1.94 2.23 2.24 58%
Mixed Use 2.61 3.66 4.71 2.15 2.47 0.24 11%
Average
Parking Ratios 3.62 4.33 5.57 2.24 2.44 1.20 27%
204
Bozeman Concept SitesFinancial Models and Analysis
This is a
placeholder
205
January 2016 | 2Bozeman
Site Concepts Introduction
206
January 2016 | 3Bozeman
Aspen Retail –Financial Model
Basic Assumptions –Most likely Scenario
Site Size 22,200 SF
Gross Building Size 8,400 SF
Number of Tenants Six (One Anchor,Five Inline)
Number of Parking
Spaces
18 Surface Spaces
Rent $20, NNN, Starting Rent for Anchor
$26, NNN, Starting Rent for Inline Tenants
Land Value $12/SF ($266,400)
Financial Performance Output Most Likely Scenario
Cash on Cash Return (Year 3)20.8%
IRR on Project Cost (Unleveraged Return)11.9%
IRR on Investor Equity (Leveraged Return
Before Taxes)30%
Aspen Retail -Proposed Site Plan
N
•Aspen Retail is most likely feasible
•Incentives and/or gap financial will likely be needed to mitigate developer risk
•As it stands today, Aspen’s location is below average for a retail property
•Once local infrastructure investment has been completed and nearby housing
developments are in place, Aspen’s site will be more marketable for a retail development
IRR on Project Cost (Unleveraged)
Total Building Cost per SF
$ 100 $ 120 $ 140 $ 160
$ 16.00 7.1%5.4%3.9%2.6%
$ 18.00 8.7%7.0%5.5%4.1%
Rent $ 20.00 10.3%8.5%6.9%5.5%
$ 22.00 11.7%9.9%8.3%6.9%
$ 24.00 13.1%11.4%9.5%8.1%
Assumptions: Assumes NNN rents are the same for anchor and in-line spaces, ten year cash flow model, terminal capitalization rate of 7%, Total
Building Cost Includes Hard and Soft Costs, Other costs are held constant.
FeasibleNot
Feasible
Aspen Retail –Feasibility Index
207
January 2016 | 4Bozeman
Mendenhall Mixed Use –Financial Model
Basic Assumptions
Site Size 22,225 SF
Gross Building Size 49,663 SF
Number of Retail Tenants Six (One Anchor,Five Inline)
Number of Units 42 Total Units
Number of Parking
Spaces
54 Total
(21 Ground level internal stalls)
(33 Underground stalls)
Residential Rent Current Market @ $1.75/SF (Not Feasible)
Rate Needed for Feasibility $2.45/SF
Retail Rent $20, NNN, Starting Rent for Anchor
$26, NNN, Starting Rent for Inline Tenants
Land Value $12/SF ($266,400)
Proposed Site Plan
N
•Mendenhall Mixed Use is not feasible in today’s market
•Residential rents at Mendenhall would have to be
approximately 40% higher than market rate for the
development to be feasible
•Incentive or gap financing could enable the development
to pencil in today’s market
FeasibleNot
Feasible
Mendenhall –Feasibility Index Mendenhall Mixed Use –Financial Performance Output
Top of Current
Market Rent
$1.75/SF
($1,550 a month for a Two Bed Unit)
Not Feasible
Necessary Rent $2.45/SF
($2,170 a month for a Two Bed Unit)
Feasible
208
January 2016 | 5Bozeman
The Durston Site
The proposed development program of the Durston
site is for two single use buildings facing the street
with surface parking tucked behind the buildings
•One Multi-Tenant Retail Building
•One –Four Story Apartment Building
•The following two slides outline these
development proposals
Proposed Site Plan
209
January 2016 | 6Bozeman
Durston Retail –Financial Model
Basic Assumptions –Most likely Scenario
Site Size 45,550 SF
Gross Building Size 12,750 SF
Number of Tenants Eight (Two Anchor,Six Inline)
Number of Parking
Spaces
42 spaces (surface parked)
Rent $20, NNN, Starting Rent for Anchor
$26, NNN, Starting Rent for Inline Tenants
Land Value $12/SF ($266,400)
Durston Retail -Proposed Site Plan
N
•Durston Retail is close to being feasible
•Rent levels necessary for feasibility are among the highest retail rents in
the market area
•Incentives and/or gap financing could enable it to pencil in today’s market
FeasibleNot
Feasible
Durston Retail –Feasibility Index
Durston Retail –Financial Performance Output
Low End of Market
Rent
$20, NNN, Anchors
$26,NNN,
Inline Tenants
Not Feasible
Necessary Rent
(Very High End of
Market Rents)
$24, NNN,
Anchors
$30, NNN
Inline Tenants
Feasible
210
January 2016 | 7Bozeman
Durston Apartments –Financial Model
Basic Assumptions
Site Size 38,700 SF
Gross Building Size 38,900 SF
Number of Units 37 Total Units
Number of Parking
Spaces
42 Total
(20 Ground level Internal stalls)
(22 Surface stalls)
Residential Rent Current Top of Market @ $1.75/SF (Not
Feasible)
Rate Needed for Feasibility $2.15/SF
Land Value $15/SF ($266,400)
•The Durston Apartments are not feasible in today’s market
•Residential rents at Durston would have to be approximately 23% higher
than market rate for the development to be feasible
•Incentive or gap financing could enable the development to pencil in
today’s market
FeasibleNot
Feasible
Durston Apartments –Feasibility Index Durston Apartments –Financial Performance Output
Top of Current
Market Rent
$1.75/SF
($1,550 a month for a Two
Bed Unit)
Not Feasible
Necessary Rent $2.15/SF
($1,903 a month for a Two
Bed Unit)
Feasible
Proposed Site Plan
211
January 2016 | 8Bozeman
Westlake Site Development
FeasibleNot
Feasible
Westlake Site –Feasibility Index •The development of the
Westlake site appears to be
close to feasibility in today’s
market
•Like the Durston site,
residential rents at Westlake
would have to be above the
current market rate to make
that apartment buildings
feasible
•The townhomes appear to be
feasible and in demand in the
current market.
•Absorption of all 91 homes
and the apartments would
likely take a few years
Westlake Site -Proposed Site Plan
Westlake Site –Development Program Values
Townhomes Small Townhomes –1,100SF
Approx. $300,000
Large Townhomes –1,944SF
Approx. $415,000
Townhomes in
these price ranges
appear to be
feasible and in
demand in the
current market
Apartments $1.75/SF
($1,550 a month for a Two Bed
Unit)
This is a top of the
market rent.Rents
will have to be
slightly higher to
make most of these
apartments work
Approximate Site Development Costs
Streets and Right of Way $3,700,000
Parks,Public Open
Space, Trails, and other
Green Spaces
$1,200,000
Parking $1,700,000
Other Site Infrastructure
Costs
$1,000,000
Raw Land Cost Plus Site
Developer’s Profit
$4,800,000
Total Site Development
Cost
$12,400,000 or $22 per Square Foot
212