Village Board of Trustees Work Session

Village of Nyack 9 North Broadway, Nyack, NY 10960 Village Board of Trustees Work Session Meeting November 10, 2022 6:30 pm Agenda 1. Amendment to the zoning requirement for minimum off street parking in the downtown area. a. Presenters: Steve Knowlton (ZBA), Peter Klose (PB), Bob Galvin (Planner). 2. Parking violations fine increase from $15 to $25 for first payment on meter violations, and other changes to schedule of fines for parking violations.  Village of Nyack Village Planner Memo To: LUTC Committee From: Bob Galvin, Village Planner Date: 6/11/2018 Re: Removal of Parking Minimums for Nyack Downtown Background Thinking on parking in towns and cities have changed in the last decade or two. It has been heavily influenced by Donald Shoup’s seminal 2005 book, The High Cost of Free Parking. The book focused on charging the right price for curb parking, spend money to improve the downtown and remove off-street parking minimums. The removal of off- street parking requirements unlocks the potential for infill development and the adaptive reuse of older buildings. The trend for removal of minimum parking requirements in downtowns has been advocated by National Main Street, Project for Public Spaces, Congress for New Urbanism, Parking.org, Strong Towns, American Planning Association and a number of planning and traffic engineering firms. The theory behind removing minimum parking requirements is that they hinder the potential of downtowns by creating barriers for new local business start-ups, and filling communities with unproductive parking spaces that don’t add value to downtowns. A growing number of communities have abolished or decreased parking minimums downtown. It is not just large cities but smaller towns and cities. Strong Towns has developed a map showing these communities which includes many small towns and cities that have removed parking minimums (https://www.strongtowns.org/parking). These communities believe that downtown parking should be treated like a utility and managed collectively. These communities are supportive of more compact, walkable and vibrant downtowns. Eliminating minimum parking standards can unlock greater economic value and prioritize the well-being of people rather than cars. Smaller communities such as Spartanburg, South Carolina, chose to eliminate parking standards in 2007. When it did so, planning and development decisions shifted from being centered around parked cars to being focused on pedestrians and walkability. Spartanburg found that downtown buildings could now be viably redeveloped without the burden of providing off-street parking. . 1 Buffalo was the first major city that eliminated parking minimums downtown. Other selected communities such as Fayetteville, Arkansas, Portland, Oregon, Hartford and Bridgeport Connecticut have also eliminated parking minimums downtown which has assisted in unleashing economic revitalization. Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Westport and Danbury CT are considering reducing or eliminating downtown parking requirements. Greenwich‘s planners have indicated that meeting the parking requirements is one of the “biggest hurdles” faced by business considering opening in the community’s downtown. Their feeling is that without regulations mandating that they provide a certain number of spaces, the town’s downtown would have significantly less vacant storefronts. In summary, the removal of minimum parking requirements generally promotes more walkable and pedestrian friendly communities. It is an important element in a mix of economic development tools. Parking minimums can add tens of thousands of dollars per parking space to the cost of new construction or to the startup costs of a new business. Parking costs can discourage developers from putting up new buildings and prevent merchants from starting new businesses. Parking minimums require businesses to subsidize the cost of parking. Review of Local Small Communities and their Approach to Downtown Parking Minimums I reviewed communities in several communities in Westchester County. A brief synopsis of their approaches follows: Town of Bedford In the downtown area, any parking and loading facilities now existing to serve such structures or uses shall not be reduced except where they exceed such requirements, in which case they shall not be reduced below such requirements. Town/Village of Mt. Kisco Mt. Kisco is currently updating their Comprehensive Plan. One of the issues of importance is the revitalization of the CBD. The new Mayor ran on this issue and has expanded the elimination of parking minimums in the downtown. Downtown off-street parking is not now required for street-level land uses (first floor). Village of Pleasantville The Village waives off-street parking requirements if a municipal parking facility is within 300’ of a proposed specified use in the CBD. Town/Village of Scarsdale Scarsdale essentially has eliminated off-street parking requirements in their CBD. Village of Port Chester Port Chester has now eliminated all off-street parking requirements in their Downtown. Tarrytown/Harrison Both municipalities waive specific parking requirements in downtown areas. Tarrytown waives up to 5 off-street parking spaces and has a lower payment fee in lieu of while Harrison has reduced parking downtown and waives 10 off-street parking spaces in the Halstead commercial corridor. Harrison is now experiencing a downtown renaissance with an increase in commercial and residential activity. Village of Mamaroneck I am most familiar with Mamaroneck Village which has a vibrant downtown. The 3 square mile Village has 20,000 residents. In 2006, the Village of Mamaroneck eliminated parking requirements for commercial uses in their downtown. At that time, we also eliminated Planning Board site plan review for uses downtown which only concerned interior alterations. Over the last 10 -12 years, commercial activity on Mamaroneck Avenue in the downtown has significantly increased. Today, it is one of Westchester County's most vibrant downtowns. Vacancy rates are approximately 3 - 4% percent in contrast to the adjacent Village of Larchmont and City of Rye. The Village maintains parking requirements for residential developments which has not stopped the development of residential and loft style apartments downtown and elsewhere in the Village. The Downtown residential parking requirements are significantly lower than elsewhere in the Village. A one-bedroom units requires 1 parking space downtown compared to 1.5 spaces elsewhere in the Village. The Village has a parking fee in lieu of which is $10,500 per space (50% due at receipt of Certificate of Occupancy with the remainder due over the next 5 years). Village has also developed new microbrewery and micro distillery legislation for downtown. The former Movie Theater (Playhouse) is now being redeveloped for 8 stadium seating screens. The 11,000 sf Chase Bank is being developed for performance space and art exhibits with a restaurant component. None of the commercial uses require off-street parking. A new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning with mixed use has been put in place adjacent to the downtown resulting in new residential development and new pedestrian oriented lifestyle shopping center with a new grocery store, North Shore Markets (replacing the former A&P). This represents an extension of the CBD. Village has recently updated their meters to smart meters with parking apps and now has developed a comprehensive Wayfinding program including kiosks, signage, downtown app and branding of the downtown as “The Avenue”. Recommendation The proposed elimination of off-street parking in Nyack’s downtown (DMU-1) is fully supported by the Village Planner. This is based upon my analysis of the literature, the experiences of small and mid- sized communities and based on my experience with the land use process in the Village of Nyack and my work in the Village of Mamaroneck as their consulting Village Planner. The removal of parking requirements for commercial businesses as well as increasing residential development in and around downtown are primary ways of expanding the commercial attraction and unleashing the economic potential of downtown. The second recommendation follows that of the City of Buffalo which eliminates off-street parking for residential development that uses adaptive reuse for existing buildings downtown. References APA Knowledgebase Collection, "Rethinking Off-Street Parking Requirements": www.planning.org/knowledgebase/parkingrequirements. Strong Towns keeps track of progress on parking minimum removals across the U.S. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/22/ Announcing a New and Improved Map of Cities That Have Removed Parking Minimums (strongtowns.org) Zoning Practice, APA, Parking Reform, Eliminating Parking Minimums, Issue No 6. June 2017. American Planning Association, People over Parking, Planning October 2018.  ZONING 360 Attachment 4 Zoning Map 360 Attachment 4:1 10 - 01 - 2017  ZONING PRACTICE JUNE 2017 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ISSUE NUMBER 6 PRACTICE PARKING REFORM ZP_June17.indd 1 6 5/23/17 10:58 AM  Eliminating Parking Minimums By Ben LeRoy For decades, many American planners unquestioningly applied minimum off-street parking requirements to projects of every conceivable size, type, and context. Whether drawn from the quasi-scientific those not trained as urban planners. Resi- valuable land that could otherwise be used findings of the Institute of Transportation En- dents and business owners alike have legiti- for productive buildings, while structured gineers’ Parking Generation report or simply mate concerns about ever-increasing conges- parking costs average nearly $19,000 per borrowed whole cloth from other cities’ zon- tion levels. Accordingly, a discussion of how space (Cudney 2016). With parking require- ing codes, minimum parking requirements to achieve parking reform would be lacking ments elevating parking supplies beyond continued to grow more onerous and complex. if it did not include a summary of the top what the market would normally produce, Communities across the nation watched as reasons why parking reform is a worthwhile parkers often do not directly cover the cost of formerly walkable neighborhoods were hol- goal. Although parking requirements are their own parking. Instead, the cost of parking lowed out by parking. Even as planners crafted well-intentioned, they raise housing prices, is tucked into rent, hiding the true allocation complete streets policies and rejiggered tax induce automobile traffic, and degrade the of the burden. Non-parkers often end up sub- incentives for infill redevelopment, minimum built environment. sidizing parkers, producing a more expensive parking requirements were largely ignored, and less fair result than allowing developers taken on faith as a necessity for any well- Increased Housing Prices to build only as much parking as parkers are planned city. Because Americans often park for free, they willing to pay for. But many planners have woken up. A could be forgiven for thinking that parking wealth of data-oriented research—from Park- is free to build and maintain. Unfortunately, Induced Automobile Traffic ing Reform Made Easy by Richard Willson, nothing could be further from the truth. It Intended to mitigate congestion, minimum faicp, to the work of Chuck Marohn, aicp’s turns out that parking—and more specifically, parking requirements have unfortunately pro- Strong Towns organization, to the seminal The parking produced as a result of minimum duced the opposite effect. By hiding the true High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup, parking requirements—is a significant con- cost of automobile ownership and spreading faicp—has produced a growing consensus tributor to unaffordable housing. out destinations, minimum parking require- within the planning profession that the tra- The construction of parking carries sub- ments create the very traffic burden they were ditional approach to requiring automobile stantial costs. Surface parking consumes created to contain. A recent analysis by the parking produces more harm than good. In response, cities and counties have begun chipping away at their parking requirements with a variety of techniques, offering urban- minded developers the opportunity to reduce their parking burden through shared parking, payments in lieu of parking, and smarter man- agement of the public parking supply. While these incremental steps have gen- erally proven popular with developers, rela- tively few communities have taken the bolder step of eliminating parking requirements in part or in full. The following sections lay out the case for parking reform, profile recent reform efforts in three cities, and present a series of strategies to help planners make the Ben LeRoy case for eliminating off-street parking require- ments to residents and elected officials. In dense urban areas with high land values, many developers choose to THE CASE FOR PARKING REFORM build parking at surface level and elevate the building on stilts. The effect at The case for parking reform is not self-evident street level is unpleasant, especially for pedestrians. in our auto-dominated society, especially to ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 ZP_June17.indd 2 5/23/17 10:58 AM  State Smart Transportation Initiative and the University of Connecticut found substantial association between increases in a city’s parking supply and subsequent increases in car commuting (McCahill 2016). Planners are unable to conduct a controlled experiment to test this phenomenon in the real world, but a wealth of evidence suggests that the relief that parking requirements supposedly buy from traffic congestion is temporary at best. A Degraded Built Environment Ask the residents of your community whether they would prefer to spend their time in the city’s most walkable district or its largest park- ing lot, and you will hear nearly unanimous acclaim for the former (a few people are born contrarians). Julie Campoli’s excellent Made for Walking examines 12 unusually walkable neighborhoods across North America. While University of Illinois Wright these neighborhoods vary in many respects, they share the theme of possessing a limited and carefully managed parking supply. As the author notes, “Rather than feeding auto- dependency, smarter parking policies help initiate a cycle of urban pedestrianism. . . . Replacing surface lots and street-level garages The University of Illinois Campus Master Plan shows several potential future with homes or businesses improves the qual- buildings (denoted by lighter coloration and anticipated GSF), some of which ity of the street and encourages trips by bike are sited on existing private land that the University does not currently own. or on foot.” PARKING REFORM IN PRACTICE While many cities have eliminated nonresi- sought (and been granted) relief from the gen- tractive test case. Surrounded by railroad dential minimum off-street parking require- erally applicable parking requirements. tracks to the east, a busy arterial street to the ments in their central business districts, very Over the same period, Champaign’s north, and the University of Illinois campus few have removed parking minimums entirely. policy makers have recognized a change in to the east and south, the University District For communities contemplating more dra- community attitudes toward transportation. is almost an island of student housing. These matic reform, the cities of Champaign, Illinois; Between 2000 and 2012, nearly a dozen text barriers largely prevent the commingling of Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Buffalo, New York, amendments reduced parking requirements student housing with nearby neighborhoods illustrate three distinct models. for particular land uses or overlay zones. composed of home owners, a typical source The Champaign Tomorrow comprehensive of NIMBY sentiment in many college towns. Champaign, Illinois plan, adopted in 2011, acknowledges the Furthermore, the University District’s robust The college town of Champaign, Illinois, has importance of balancing the parking sup- transit network, its proximity to campus, and seen substantial reinvestment in its core ply against other transportation and urban the lack of on-campus student parking com- neighborhoods over the past 15 years. Spurred design concerns to enhance walkability in bined to keep daily driving demand among the on by growing enrollment at the University of core neighborhoods. With a comprehensive University District’s (mostly student) residents Illinois, local developers have engaged in a update to the zoning ordinance following at a minimum. Extensive interviews of Univer- building boom in the high-density residential on the heels of Champaign Tomorrow and sity District landlords confirmed staff observa- neighborhood (known as the University Dis- Champaign’s minimum parking requirements tions that the residential parking supply was trict) adjacent to campus. At the same time, a experiencing death by a thousand cuts, the experiencing a vacancy rate of approximately greater number of all sorts of residents—grad- city’s planning staff began to consider the 30 percent. At study sessions with the plan uate students, young professionals, empty possibility of taking a bold step: eliminating commission and city council, elected and ap- nesters, and even families—have driven a parking requirements in the core neighbor- pointed officials expressed their openness to smaller boom in Champaign’s vibrant down- hoods of the community. further reductions in parking requirements. town. With space at a premium and walkability A quirk of geography and demography With no opposition arising from home owners in high demand, developers have frequently made Champaign’s University District an at- (who were indifferent) or the development ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 ZP_June17.indd 3 5/23/17 10:58 AM  community (which was eager for parking re- form), Champaign staff anticipated smooth passage of a proposal to eliminate all parking requirements within the University District. However, the proposal hit an unexpected speed bump at the plan commission meeting. Andrew Garner, City of Fayetteville The University of Illinois sent a representative to the meeting to register the university’s op- position. Citing the university’s master plan, the university’s director of real estate plan- ning and services expressed concern over the impact the proposal would have on privately held surface parking lots adjacent to campus: “Once this law is eliminated those parking lots will become the hottest commodity in The second floor of Fayetteville’s Nelson’s Crossing Shopping Center sat Champaign County for high-density develop- vacant for years as it was “underparked” according to the city’s parking ment. It turns out that some of those that are requirements table. Once nonresidential parking requirements were preserved right now for parking for the private repealed, businesses could occupy the second floor, improving the sector are locations where we have proposed development’s financial productivity. future academic buildings” (Champaign 2015). The commission was unmoved by this line of dissent, but nevertheless continued monitor private parking demand and pricing amendment allowed bike parking spaces to the hearing to another date. At that meeting, over the coming years. Staff anticipates that be substituted for automobile parking spaces. the university abandoned its original argu- the findings will show that any concerns were Nevertheless, most projects in downtown ment, suggesting instead that a tightening largely unfounded: The market will value park- Fayetteville (and everywhere else) were still of the residential parking supply could lead ing appropriately for the first time in decades, subject to minimum parking requirements. to overflow and enforcement impacts on the and Champaign’s core neighborhoods will The impetus to completely eliminate university’s parking supply. Staff countered, continue to mature into more walkable areas nonresidential parking requirements came noting that the university’s parking supply is as the effects of a one-size-fits-all parking from the community’s commercial real estate largely controlled by a combination of meters policy begin to fade. brokers. Planning staff noted the frustration and permits, making it highly unlikely that many brokers expressed in trying to fill vacant University District residents would try to use Fayetteville, Arkansas commercial spaces with new uses required to university parking as long-term parking. Fayetteville, Arkansas, is similar to Cham- provide more parking than the original use. Ultimately, both the planning commis- paign, Illinois, in many ways. Both are college This issue was not limited to downtown, but sion and city council approved the proposal, towns with approximately 80,000 residents. extended even into the city’s most automo- and in October 2015 Champaign eliminated Both host a flagship state university. Both rec- bile-oriented districts. Noting the constraining parking requirements within the University ognized a problem with their existing parking effect parking requirements were having on District. As predicted, a number of student regulations. While Champaign has eliminated the local economy, staff proposed cutting all housing developments submitted permit ap- all parking minimums in select areas, in 2015 nonresidential parking requirements. plications shortly afterwards, as developers Fayetteville eliminated all nonresidential park- To the surprise of many, the adop- were waiting to make use of the lower park- ing requirements citywide, leaving parking tion of such sweeping parking reform went ing requirements. These developments all requirements for residential uses in place. relatively smoothly. Fayetteville’s planning provide parking at different rates, but none of As in Champaign, Fayetteville’s parking director, Andrew Garner, aicp, recounts that them provides as much parking as was previ- reform efforts were built on the foundation of staff framed the proposal to tick many boxes ously required. As the Fall 2017 semester ap- a comprehensive plan commitment to reduc- for both liberal and conservative community proaches, these developments will be open- ing automobile dependence. The Fayetteville members and elected officials. Parking reform ing their doors for the first time. Others are in Downtown Master Plan expanded on this idea, in Fayetteville found bipartisan support in the pipeline right now. In the meantime, the recommending a “Smart Parking” approach its projected sustainability improvements, city expanded parking reform to the nearby including the adoption of shared parking reduced burden on small business owners, Midtown and Downtown areas, eliminating standards and revised minimum parking re- and individual property rights. While some parking requirements in core areas that serve quirements. But change began slowly. While mild opposition arose, enthusiastic support a much less student-oriented population. It the city amended its downtown parking regu- from several planning commissioners assured is possible—even likely—that some of the lations to allow changes in land use without passage. Tracy Hoskins, a businessman and developments built in the wake of this reform the provision of new parking, new construc- developer who sits on the planning commis- will find that they have underbuilt or overbuilt tion and building expansion still triggered the sion, acknowledged that while the parking their parking supply, and the city plans to standard parking requirements. A separate reform experiment might create a few negative ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 ZP_June17.indd 4 5/23/17 10:58 AM  process up for review, parking received sub- stantial emphasis during these meetings but did not lead the agenda. As project manager John Fell, aicp, recalls, “parking was prob- ably a top five important issue to the public,” but people were equally or more concerned with building height and materials, site de- sign, and the redevelopment of large vacant institutional sites. The project also recruited a citizen advisory committee, composed of representatives from every city neighborhood, to both act as a sounding board and recruit neighbors to public meetings. Andrew Garner, City of Fayetville The input process gave the plan- ning team opportunities to urge concerned residents to consider a more comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) approach to congestion, rather than clinging to an outdated system of parking require- ments that had only managed to degrade The proposed Lumiere Theatre in downtown Fayetteville would not provide the urban environment while doing little to any parking of its own, relying instead on the private and public supply on mitigate congestion. Under the new code, surrounding streets and lots. projects consisting of (a) 5,000 square feet of new construction or (b) 50,000 square feet of a renovation involving a change of use must impacts, “the question is does this cure more sweeping new unified development ordinance prepare a TDM plan. While each project must problems than it creates? And absolutely, it that, among other things, eliminated parking accommodate the travel demand it generates, does” (Gill 2015). requirements almost universally. developers may employ a host of demand As Fayetteville’s parking reform ap- Having grown to over 550,000 residents management tools ranging from bicycle park- proaches its second anniversary, Garner before World War II, Buffalo has spent the last ing to subsidized transit passes to alternative reports that results have been as expected so several decades shrinking to approximately half work schedules. far. In more auto-oriented districts, business- its peak population. Buffalo’s population de- The full impact of Buffalo’s parking es continue to provide ample parking. Some cline has been accompanied by a hollowing out reform will not be felt for several years, but sites exceed the old minimum requirements, of its many prewar neighborhoods by parking things are already starting to change. Staff while others have made use of the increased lots. As one civic booster quipped about down- members report fielding interest from a few flexibility to fill spaces previously kept vacant town Buffalo in 2003, “If you look very closely, developers in adding dwelling units without due to code requirements. Meanwhile, down- there are still some buildings that are standing additional parking to small projects already town Fayetteville is making room for a pair of in the way of parking progress” (Shoup 2005). under way. Though many of Buffalo’s walkable theater projects that planners anticipate will Not content to idly watch the city contin- neighborhoods currently bear the scars of make the area even more vibrant. One of the ue to slide, the city’s strategic planning office required parking lots, look for these areas to theaters proposes no parking at all, while the launched the Buffalo Green Code planning mature and thrive as the city’s residents redis- other (which includes a small number of on- effort in April 2010. This project stripped the cover the value of urban-style developments site dwelling units) proposes a small lot for city’s existing unified development ordinance in their urban neighborhoods. staff and residents. No matter the location, down to the studs, replacing its standard use- Fayetteville businesses are now free to pro- based zoning with a form-based code, retool- STRATEGIES FOR SELLING PARKING REFORM vide as much—or as little—parking as they ing street design standards, and severely cur- The context for parking reform in each of the need to become successful contributors to tailing parking requirements. As one project preceding examples was unique, as it is for the community. consultant put it, the Green Code represents every community. The elected officials and “a radical reimagining of how they were going citizens in these cities may have shared a Buffalo, New York to do every facet of the development controls willingness to listen, learn, and experiment Parking reform in Champaign and Fayetteville in the city of Buffalo” (Strungys 2017). with parking reform in a way that other com- may seem like a leap to planners in communi- The sheer scope of the Green Code proj- munities are not quite ready for. Nevertheless, ties still nipping and tucking their parking ect necessitated an extremely robust public some of the strategies employed are transfer- codes, but their partial parking repeals are input process, with over 240 community meet- rable to municipalities of every type and size. downright modest compared to Buffalo, New ings attracting over 6,500 participants. With Consider trying the following strategies when York. That city closed out 2016 by adopting a every element of the development control pursuing parking reform in your community. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 ZP_June17.indd 5 5/23/17 10:58 AM  rebuttals address this line of attack. First, in a competitive housing market tenants will gen- erally select the housing option with greater amenities (including parking) if rent is the same, providing a strong economic incentive for landlords with less parking to lower their rents to remain competitive. Additionally, even if prices do not drop for some reason, it is hard to argue in favor of forcing tenants to waste money on unused parking simply to spite developers and reduce their profits. Fairness arguments can be very power- ful in these situations. Is it good city policy to make people pay for parking they don’t Tim Kirkby use? Depending on the community, appeal- ing to housing affordability can be a power- ful argument. Two projects, one profit margin: A developer expects the same return from either building, but the one granted parking flexibility presents a much Substitute Local Examples for National more welcoming face to the street. Studies The field of parking policy research has pro- duced extensive data about nearly every as- Employ Scenarios and Alternatives parking requirements, although care must be pect of parking, from vacancy rates to supply/ Parking requirements have been the law of taken to avoid stirring up legitimate concerns demand models to land consumption. Unfor- the land for so long that many people have that parking reform is simply a giveaway of the tunately, these studies may be of limited use trouble envisioning how a newly constructed city’s regulatory power to enhance the private in front of elected officials disinclined to look building with little or no parking might func- sector’s bottom line. Asking developers to to national trends for local decisions. Instead, tion in their city. The local development com- compare “required” and “flexible” parking generate your own local data and examples munity can show the impact of parking re- alternatives that project the same profit mar- to create a compelling narrative that parking quirements on both the design and finances gin can mitigate these concerns. reform is a unique solution for your unique of a proposed project. city’s unique problems. In Champaign, architect Tim Kirkby, aicp, Put the Focus on Residents, Not Drivers In Fayetteville, planners could point to demonstrated to the plan commission how Many parking reform efforts are stalled by buildings in otherwise busy commercial dis- one of his projects would change if parking neighboring residents and businesses sound- tricts that were being left vacant due to exces- requirements were eliminated (Champaign ing the alarm about parking congestion. Even sive parking requirements. In Buffalo, staff 2015). Kirkby presented two alternatives side if these concerns are overblown (as they are successfully argued that residential parking by side. While both alternatives projected an in many cases), parking congestion proves requirements were excessive in a community expected return of 7.5 percent, their form and to be a difficult ground on which to do battle. where 30 percent of households did not own a finances differed dramatically. The “required Instead, consider shifting the conversation to single car. In Champaign, questionnaires sent parking” alternative was two stories taller the positive impact that parking reform has on to landlords revealed that most apartment than the “flexible parking” alternative, and the wallets of residents. buildings had parking occupancy rates of only was largely lifted up on stilts to accommodate As discussed above, overly burdensome 60 to 80 percent, even at reduced rental rates. ground-floor parking. In contrast, the “flexible parking requirements raise the cost of con- These findings mirrored numbers from the parking” alternative had one fewer curb cut struction and building maintenance. These city’s own public parking permits in the area, and presented ground-level dwelling units fac- costs are tucked into the rent and purchase which had cut rates in an attempt to preserve ing the street. Perhaps more compelling was price of building, needlessly raising the price the 70 percent occupancy rate. In all these the financial comparison of the two buildings. on every activity conducted within those cases, the local story told the tale of why park- The cost of building required parking was buildings. Invite concerned neighbors and ing reform was important. projected to increase rents by approximately elected officials to speculate on what it could Remember, too, that the story does not 33 percent! This real-life example of a building mean for the city coffers if residents, no longer end upon the successful adoption of new that would be made both more attractive and tied up by unnecessary parking costs, found parking regulations. As the built environment more affordable was very compelling evidence themselves with a greater disposable income. changes over the years, consider tracking of the wisdom of eliminating parking require- A common rejoinder to this argument building permits to see how much parking ments in the University District. raises the specter that developers will simply developers are providing. In Champaign, staff The development community is already keep rents the same and pocket the cost sav- projected that most future buildings would a natural ally of any planner seeking to ease ings as extra profit. Fortunately, a couple of likely provide parking at 50 to 75 percent of ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 ZP_June17.indd 6 5/23/17 10:58 AM  the rate formerly required, promising to return ering reducing their parking requirements. through much of the 20th century, but cities to the plan commission with an update in Visit this site to gain ideas for your communi- are beginning to experiment with individual- a few years. One and a half years later, this ty, and update the map once you have made ized solutions. projection has been borne out by the build- progress toward your goals. The planning No single parking policy will be the right ing permits received for review. Tracking datatrade press is also very receptive to stories choice for every city, but the examples re- both before and after adoption of parking about parking reform. counted in this article may provide a road map reform reassures elected officials that they Don’t hesitate to contact publications for your community to rethink how parking fits can always change the like Planning magazine, in with other planning goals. rules back if an unforeseen Streetsblog, CityLab, or negative trend arises. your favorite planning blog. You may be surprised ABOUT THE AUTHOR SHARING THE STORY Explore the Strong at their willingness to Perhaps your community shine a spotlight on your Ben LeRoy is an associate planner for Towns parking will be the next to make unique efforts. Champaign, Illinois, and a 2013 graduate waves in the planning reform map Finally, consider of the University of Illinois at Urbana- world by adopting sweep- submitting a session Champaign. His master’s capstone analyzed ing parking reforms. Or (strongtowns.org/ proposal to a conference. the impacts of minimum parking requirements perhaps your community is parking) to see Parking sessions are often on the city’s rental housing supply. He has still testing the waters with standing room only at APA also drafted new infill-friendly zoning districts incremental tweaks to the how communities conferences, but other in the city’s core neighborhoods and rewritten system. Whatever position around the country connected professional the planned development ordinance. you find yourself in, re- organizations such as the member to share the story are updating International City/County with the world! Parking Management Association, their parking reform is still a relatively the American Public Works Cover: 1343024/Pixabay.com, CC0 nascent movement, and requirements. Association, and the Gov- practitioners around the ernment Finance Officers country benefit from see- Association can benefit ing what their colleagues from learning about park- Vol. 34, No. 6 in other cities and states ing reform as well. Zoning Practice is a monthly ­publication of the have accomplished. It is an exciting time to be working in American Planning Association. Subscriptions Strong Towns maintains a user-updated the field of parking reform. Most cities em- are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). James M. Drinan, jd, Chief Executive Officer; map of communities that have or are consid- ployed the same parking policy playbook David Rouse, faicp, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced at APA. Joseph DeAngelis and David Morley, aicp, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Senior Editor. REFERENCES Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Campoli, Julie. 2012. Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form. Cambridge, Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available at tinyurl.com/k3557tq. 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or subscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of Champaign (Illinois), City of. 2015. “Champaign Plan Commission Meeting, May 9.” the publication date. Include the name of the Available at tinyurl.com/mwygock. publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and Cudney, Gary. 2016. Parking Structure Cost Outlook for 2016. Available at tinyurl.com/ membership number if applicable. khqo8am. Copyright ©2017 by the American Planning Gill, Todd. “Fayetteville considers eliminating minimum parking standards.” Fayetteville Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Flyer, August 10, 2015. Available at tinyurl.com/mwey2l3. Chicago, IL 60601–5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, McCahill, Christopher T., Norman Garrick, Carol Atkinson-Palombo, and Adam Polinski. Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005–1503; planning.org. 2016. “Effects of Parking Provision on Automobile Use in Cities.” Transportation Re- search Record, 2543: 159–165. Available at tinyurl.com/mpx65od . All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by Shoup, Donald C. 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Asso- any means, electronic or mechanical, including ciation. Available at planning.org/publications/book/9026730. photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission Strungys, Arista. 2017. Telephone interview with author, February 6. in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 ZP_June17.indd 7 5/23/17 10:58 AM ZP_June17.indd 8 ZONING PRACTICE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 205 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601–592 DOES YOUR ZONING STILL REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING? 6 5/23/17 10:58 AM  MEMORANDUM – VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR TO VILLAGE BOARD TO: MAYOR DON HAMMOND AND TRUSTEES FROM: ANDY STEWART , VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: PARKING FINES AMENDMENT AND PERMIT PARKING MONTHLY FEE AMENDMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2022 First, as discussed last meeting (10/27/22) the Board’s authority to set parking fees and fines via the Standard Schedule of Fees needs to be established more clearly in local code, so a public hearing on a couple of minor amendments is taking place tonight with a resolution offered to make the recommended amendments. Second, as discussed last meeting (10/27/22) I have met with Parking Enforcement and Court staff and would like to propose updating parking fines, last done at least ten years ago. The attached grid shows the proposed changes. The grid shows an increase in the initial meter violation fine from $15 to $25. All the other increases in the grid apply only to the late/overdue payment stages of the various violations. In support of this increase I offer the context that: 1. The Parking Authority has an outstanding debt of $1.6M to the general fund which we need to show progress paying down to remain in the good graces of creditors, impacting the interest rates the village pays for debt for capital projects. 2. The Parking Authority routinely runs an annual deficit of at least $30,000- $40,000. 3. Tarrytown, Bronxville and Tuckahoe all charge $25 (Haverstraw is $15 and Orangetown is $12) 4. The meter violation fine has not been increased in 10 years, but all costs of operations have increased over time. The proposed increase to $25 would likely generate about $130,000 in revenues (roughly 13,000 violations per year X $10). Third, as discussed last meeting (10/27/22), I am also proposing an increase in the monthly parking permit fees, that have not been increased since about 2008: • Catherine St lot, increase from $40 to $50 per month per space • Village lot, keep same at $60 per month per space.  • Spear St lot, increase from $20 to $40 per month per space. Fourth, as discussed last meeting (10/27/22), I am proposing expanding available spaces for permitting at Spear St to include the 20+ spaces located along retaining wall on west side of the lot and along the uphill side of the sewer pump station. Although monthly sales are quite variable, these changes are likely to boost annual permit revenues from about $45,000 to about $60,000. 2  Justice Court Recommendation V&T # Violation Description Code Original Price 1st Late Fee Final Late Fee Rec $ Price 1st Late Final Fee 1 Meter Violation (Street) VC $15.00 $20.00 $45.00 1 $25.00 $30.00 $50.00 2 Meter Violation (Lot) VC $15.00 $20.00 $45.00 2 $25.00 $30.00 $50.00 3 Loading Zone VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 3 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 4 Police Vehicels Only V&T $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 4 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 5 No Parking Here to Corner V&T $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 5 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 6 No Parking in Crosswalk VC $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 6 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 7 Expire or no Inspection V&T $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 7 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 8 Expired Registration V&T $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 8 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 9 Two Meter Spaces VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 9 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 10 No Parking Anytime V&T $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 10 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 11 More than 12'' From Curb V&T $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 11 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 12 No Standing/ Stopping VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 12 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 13 3am-6am VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 13 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 14 Double Parked V&T $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 14 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 15 3am-6am VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 15 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 16 Permit VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 16 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 17 Snow Emergency Route VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 17 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 18 Vehicle Unattended V&T $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 18 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 19 Fire Hydrant V&T $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 19 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 20 Parked on Sidewalk V&T $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 20 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 21 Parked Left Side to Curb V&T $75.00 $100.00 $125.00 21 $75.00 $100.00 $150.00 22 Over 4hr. Parking Limit VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 22 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 23 Exceeded Time Limitation VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 23 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 24 Posted VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 24 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 25 Exceeded 1 Hour Limit VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 25 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 26 15 Minute Zone VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 26 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 27 Removal VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 27 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 28 Offical Parking Only VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 28 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 29 No Front Plate V&T $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 29 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 30 Permit Parking Only VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 30 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 31 Fire Zone VC $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 31 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 32 No Parking 3am-6am VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 32 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 33 No Parking 6am-9am VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 33 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 34 Handicapped Parking Only VC $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 34 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 35 Bus Stop VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 35 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 36 Blocking Driveway VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 36 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 37 Idling Prohibited VC $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 37 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 38 8am-11am VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 38 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 39 6pm-12am VC $25.00 $38.00 $50.00 39 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00