HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Staff Report dated December 22, 2020 Item No. 26
Staff Report
REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN DOWNTOWN
December 22, 2020
BACKGROUND
City Council received a request from Jerry Nelson asking the City Council to consider
eliminating parking requirements for small residential developments in Downtown. (See
Attached Letter). The requestor believes loosening parking requirements would be
desirable to facilitate small scale housing developments and rehabilitation of existing
buildings.
Staff believes the issue of facilitating small scale residential development through
conversions of existing space, or in some cases new buildings, warrants further
discussion as to how it relates to our goals for supporting Downtown. Due to the limited
options for redevelopment downtown, its historic status, and the current
abundance of public parking, it seems that trying to facilitate smaller mixed-use
housing development that would otherwise not be financially feasible could be
allowed. The downside is potentially encouraging undesirable redevelopment of
historic sites, large scale rental apartment projects, and the eventual pressure on
the public parking system with an intensification of residential uses that do not
provide for parking.
Residential parking is required at a rate of 1 space per unit in DSC zoning, the same as
CSC zoning. The City's Rental Code reflects this same requirement in order to license a
dwelling for rental purposes. The current parking rate is less than what is required for
other apartment dwellings at a rate of 1 space per bedroom. Parking must be located on
the same lot or remotely within 300 feet of the site. A remote site must be approved by
City Council and available for the user in perpetuity. This means that the renting of spaces
on an as needed basis does not meet this standard.
Staff believes there are multiple approaches to address the issue identified within the
letter that could be discussed. The applicant requests that up to 18 apartment units be
exempt from providing parking. This number was originally predicated on the idea that
18 parking spaces could be established on a typical 50x100-foot lot in downtown. Staff
estimates that 11-14 spaces may fit on a lot, without factoring in landscaping
requirements. Please note that new standalone parking lot is not a permitted use in
Downtown due to minimum floor area ratio development standards. The idea of use of
the 50x100-foot lot for parking is more in the context of keeping existing areas for parking
rather than see them redevelop with other uses.
The proposal to reduce parking requirements is a policy issue for Downtown more
than a technical zoning issue. Cities across the country must balance encouraging
investment in core urban areas where parking is an expensive component of
development with potential burdens to a public parking system if demand exceeds
supply.
1
Although current parking rate of one space per unit is a reasonable parking standard for
urban areas and generally a low parking requirement for new development, that does not
mean that it could not be adjusted to support current Downtown Ames conditions and a
desire to promote more housing in existing areas of the Downtown. This leads to a range
of options to consider for changing parking rates. Staff believes any changes should
be tailored to facilitating small to medium sized projects and support of smaller
apartment configurations so as to not unintentionally incentivize large scale
housing development in Downtown.
In terms of defining a small or medium sized project, staff would focus on a typical lot size
configuration of Downtown, 50x100-foot lot, and focus on a three-story building template.
5,000 square feet of building area would likely yield 4 to 6 apartments per level if the
whole area of a lot was used for a building. This means that 8-12 units would fit in three-
story building configuration with retail on the ground floor and living area above. Staffs
discussion below is predicated on this template for a 50x100 foot lot, although other
configurations could occur,
Option 1-Waive All Parking for Apartments up to 18 Units (Original Request)
This option would support housing development of exist spaces and new development in
a three to four-story prototype of ground floor commercial and apartments above. This
level of waiver would incept consideration of more substantial renovations or
redevelopments to increase density Downtown. By waiving all parking requirements
there would be no connection to the Rental Code for providing parking. Parking would
be the responsibility of the tenant to find parking to rent or to park on the street
where overnight parking is permitted.
This option could be allowed for any range of units targeted to small or medium sized
projects, such as the 8 to 12 units described by staff above. Staff is not in favor of a
broad brush waiver of all spaces for 18 apartments that allow for configurations of
up to five bedrooms per apartment. A waiver of parking could be established "by right"
in the zoning standards or as an exception process subject to approval, like remote
parking.
Option 2-Waive All Parkin for 2-Bedroom Apartments up to 18 Units.
This option addresses parking requirements similar to the first option, but limits it
to apartments with two or less bedrooms per unit. if the apartments had more
bedrooms then the 1 space requirement would still apply. Providing the one space would
be subject to zoning standards of on site or remote. It would also be required to comply
with the Rental Code for providing parking as required. The number of apartments eligible
for the waiver could be reduced as well.
Option 3- App1V Annual Rental Code Requirements and Eliminate Zoning
Standards
The Rental Code requires landlords to provide parking as required by the Zoning
Ordinance in terms of quantity, location, and desire elements. As mentioned above, the
2
issue of remote parking is a limiting factor Downtown due to the expectation of permeance
to meet zoning standards. As a more flexible remote parking option, would be to
allow for providing for parking on an annual basis through the Rental Code Letter
of Compliance process. Staff believes this would allow for both the use of private
parking areas in Downtown and even the use of designated/reserved City parking permits
to meet this standard. To accomplish this the City would likely need to revise its
overnight parking policies to ensure there is opportunity for public parking
locations to meet parking needs on an annual basis.
Option 4 Require Parkin In-Lieu Fee When Parking is Not Built On-Site.
To minimize the financial incentive of providing no parking and to address potential future
needs to add parking supply, the City could establish a parking in-lieu fee. An in-lieu fee
would be set by the City Council based upon the assumption of the City constructing
future parking spaces. If a developer pays the fee, there is no obligation to provide parking
on site. Parking in lieu fees help to defray future costs to construct additional
parking, but they are unlikely to fully fund a future parking ramp Downtown which
ultimately be required to meet the increased parking demand. The cost for the fee
would likely range between the cost of a surface parking stall (est. $4,000) and a parking
stall within a parking structure (est. $26,000).
STAFF COMMENTS:
Overall staff supports changes that facilitate additional living opportunities
Downtown. Parking is often an impediment both ,financially and physically to
supporting urban living choices. Although there are a wide range of changes to
standards that could be considered, generally Council needs to consider potential
changes to public parking spaces for overnight parking on-street or in City lots as
well as changes to zoning for on-site parking requirements.
Our Downtown has underutilized public and private parking spaces that existing today
that could support shared use and more housing Downtown. Due to these conditions,
staff supports an option that allows for more flexibility in residential development,
especially when focused on the small to medium sized scale development that is
complementary to the character of Downtown.
Assuming that the City Council is in support of increasing Downtown housing, staff would
recommend that City Council:
9. Initiate a zoning text amendment to reduce parking requirements based upon an
option described above; and
2. Direct the City Manager to review options for changing overnight parking
restrictions in Downtown.
3
Attachment A
November 6,2020
RE; Downtown Residential Parking Requirements
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Downtown area and housing options have been a priority of City Councils for at least the past eight
years but very little has happened to move the needle.After looking at pursuing a small-scale mixed-use
project Downtown,it is apparent that parking regulations are a real impediment to both new projects as
well as rehabbing under-or un-utilized,upper-floor units in existing buildings.
The current rule requiring one parking space per unit is not a viable option for a building that currently
takes most or all of its lot area.For these properties, it is impossible to meet the requirement onsite
without tearing down the building,which is both something that is not a good outcome as well as
prohibitively expensive for the small number of parking spaces that would create.
While there are options in the code that allow for remote parking agreements,those spaces are
required to be available essentially permanently for the specific use of residential units.The issue at
hand is that there is precious little public or private land available for parking in the DSC let alone within
the 300'radius required of remote parking as currently required. But even if it were,would we really
want to reserve land for surface parking in our urban core in perpetuity?
These issues affect any.potential project in the DSC but are especially acute for smaller projects where
structured parking either will not fit or be so expensive per space on the site that no project occurs.
The end result is that no residential units will be built at a small scale or only large projects will be
possible,simply because of parking. Keep in mind that there are already over SO units downtown that
are grandfathered in with no parking.
We respectfully request that Council refer to staff to put an item on a near-term future agenda that
would eliminate the residential parking requirements of one space per unit in the DSC area to a
maximum of the number of spaces that would fit on the property if it were a surface parking lot to a
maximum of 18 spaces.
The risks of eliminating this requirement can be mitigated with future parking regulation changes and
are small in consideration of what may be possible with its adoption.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jerry Nelson
Onondaga Investments
4