HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/06/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Study session Planning commission study session meeting
July 15, 2026
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Laura Chamberlain at 952.924.2573
or the administration department at 952.924.2505.
Planning commission study session
The St. Louis Park planning commission is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005
Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend and watch the meeting in person.
Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Agenda
1. Parking minimums: research and resources
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
August 5, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
August 19, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
September 2, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
September 16, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
1
2
Planning commission: Study session
Meeting date: July 15, 2026
Agenda item: 1
1 Parking minimums: research and resources
Background:
During phase 2 of the zoning code update (ZCU), the planning commission identified parking
minimums as a topic for more in-depth analysis and requested a comprehensive review of the
city’s approach to parking requirements. As a result, a study of parking minimums was added to
the commission’s 2026 work plan.
This study session will focus on research in the urban planning field around parking minimum
regulations. The discussion will concentrate on the goals of this policy change and possible
impacts within the city.
Policy resources:
Staff have compiled resources from policy researchers and leaders in urban planning regarding
parking minimums. Commissioners are encouraged to explore these resources ahead of the
study session to inform the discussion.
- Urban Land Institute (ULI): Parking Policy Innovations in the United States. ULI has
assembled factsheets (attached) about various approaches to parking policy in the US.
Their website also has an interactive database to search for examples of cities that have
utilized these various policies.
- Sustainable development code: Chapter 3 Land Use and Community Character, Section
6: Parking. The sustainable development code analyzes issues cities face with
sustainability and provides a wholistic framework, emphasizing that removing barriers
within city code are not enough, cities also need to create incentives and fill regulatory
gaps to meet their sustainability goals. The matrix for parking identifies that eliminating
or reducing parking minimums near transit should be done in tandem with other
policies.
- American Planning Association (APA) Zoning Reform Toolkit: the toolkit highlights how
reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements can help make housing more
affordable (section attached).
- Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission:
Parking Policy Playbook. This technical assistance playbook was put together by Bay
Area cities to provide local governments with a suite of approaches that could help
address parking issues.
Policies St. Louis Park is already employing:
The City of St. Louis Park has taken incremental steps to reduce and right size parking
throughout the community. Some of these steps include:
- Right sizing parking within mixed-use developments to maximize efficient use of parking
for residential, commercial, and employee uses.
- Reducing off-street parking requirements within mixed-use areas and allowing existing
buildings to change uses without requiring additional parking, (expanding this provision
from the Historic Walker Lake area to all mixed-use areas in ZCU2)
- Establishing parking maximums within all mixed-use areas, expanding this standard from
the Historic Walker Lake area.
3
Study session of July 15, 2026 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parking minimums: research and resources
- Reducing parking requirements for developments located in proximity to transit service.
- Requiring or encouraging the use of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans for
qualifying developments to reduce parking demand.
- Encouraging and permitting shared parking arrangements and shared access between
adjacent properties.
- Allowing on-street parking spaces adjacent to a development to count toward required
off-street parking.
- Allowing a portion of required vehicle parking to be substituted with bicycle parking
(introduced as part of ZCU2).
- Eliminating minimum parking requirements within the Historic Walker Lake area
(introduced as part of ZCU2).
Discussion:
During the July 15, 2026 study session, the planning commission is asked to discuss the
following questions to guide future work related to parking requirements:
- What goals does the planning commission hope to achieve by reducing / removing
parking minimum requirements (ex: reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), free up land
for more intense uses, etc.)? Which outcome is a top priority for the commission?
- Are there other city policies or infrastructure that will be impacted or needed to
accomplish those goals?
Next steps:
- Utilize 2050 Comprehensive Plan engagement events to understand community support
of policy change
- Strategic priority analysis of policy change
Attachments: ULI Parking Policy Reform factsheets; APA Zoning Reform Toolkit: Reduce or
Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements
Prepared by: Laura Chamberlain, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, Planning & Economic Development Manager
4
PARKING POLICY REFORM
Types of Off-Street Parking Policy Updates
• Advances in technology are promoting more efficient
management of the existing parking supply by using information
technology that shares the location of available spaces, supports
real-time dynamic pricing, and helps make shared parking
options easier.
• An increased focus by municipalities on sustainability,
livability, and social equity and a growing body of
research show that many current parking requirements promote
development patterns that increase traffic congestion, contribute
to air pollution, raise housing costs, prevent walkability, and
penalize those without automobiles.1
Since the 1940s, many cities have required new developments to
provide a set number of off-street parking spots, but research has
shown that these requirements can lead to an oversupply
of parking.
Cities across the United States (and beyond) are updating parking
policies to better manage existing parking supply, reduce traffic,
cut pollution, and lower development costs.
Selected Trends Influencing
Parking Reforms
• Historically high construction costs—particularly in
dense urban areas—are contributing to housing unaffordability,
especially when the high costs of building on-site parking are
factored in.
• Changing shopping preferences, along with over-
retailing, are leaving acres of parking lots at many shopping
malls and retail power centers vacant.
• The popularity of human-powered transportation,
such as walking and bicycling, along with the growth of delivery
services and the availability of shared mobility services—such
as Lyft, Uber, and car-sharing services—is reducing the need
for individuals to own—and park—cars.
5
1 Donald Shoup, “Parking Reform Will Save the City,” Bloomberg City Lab, September 20, 2019.
2 Thomas P. Smith, “Flexible Parking Requirements” (PAS Report 377, American Planning Association, 1983).
Selected Types of Off-Street Parking Policy Reforms
POLICY TYPE:POLICY TYPE:EXAMPLES INCLUDE:EXAMPLES INCLUDE:
Reducing or Eliminating Parking Minimums
Reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements
allows developers, parking consultants, and other
stakeholders to determine how much parking to include in
projects rather than requiring developers to build a set ratio of
parking spaces based on a building’s square footage, planned
uses, or the number of bedrooms in multifamily units.
• South Bend, IN: In 2021, the South Bend City Council voted to
end minimum parking requirements citywide.
• San Francisco, CA: San Francisco’s 2018 parking policy
update made the city the largest in the United States to be
completely free of minimum parking requirements.
• Buffalo, NY: In 2017, Buffalo became the first major U.S. city
to eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide.
• Hartford, CT: In 2017, Hartford lifted all minimum off-street
parking requirements throughout the city.
Maximum On-Site Parking Requirements
(aka Parking Caps)
Maximum on-site parking requirements restrict the total
number of parking spaces that can be constructed as part
of a development project. A maximum number of spaces
is often based on the square footage of a specific land use.
Maximum parking requirements can be in addition to or
instead of minimum parking requirements.
• Dunwoody, GA: In 2020, the city of Dunwoody transformed
its former minimum required parking ratios into maximum
parking caps for most uses.
• San Diego, CA: The city’s 2019 Transit Priority Area (TPA)
Multifamily Parking Standards set a maximum of one parking
space per unit for new apartment and condominium projects
downtown.
• Sandpoint, ID: A 2009 general code update set parking
maximums for commercial, entertainment, and recreational
uses at no more than 20 percent above the minimum
requirement. The update also eliminated required minimum
off-street parking downtown.
Shared Parking
Shared parking means that parking spaces are shared by
more than one use, which allows parking facilities to be
used more efficiently. Shared parking policies recognize
that most parking spaces are used only part time, with
usage patterns that follow predictable daily, weekly, and
annual cycles.
Parking shared between mutually beneficial uses can
reduce parking provision by 40 to 60 percent, compared
with the standard off-street parking requirements for each
destination.2 For example, offices require maximum parking
during weekdays, whereas restaurants and theaters require
maximum parking during evenings and weekends.
• Honolulu, HI: In 2020, Honolulu eliminated the need for land
use permits for on-site “joint use” of parking. The number of
required parking spaces may be reduced by applying rates
specific to various mixes of uses.
• Phoenix, AZ: Shared parking reductions of up to 15 percent
may be granted for retail, office, or mixed-use projects after
using the city’s shared parking model to estimate parking
demand for a specific mix of uses.
• Montgomery County, MD: An applicant proposing a
development with more than one use may submit a shared
parking analysis instead of using the county’s usual parking
requirement formula.
Unbundled Parking
Unbundled parking policies prohibit embedding parking
costs with unrelated charges, such as including parking in
the cost of housing or an office lease. Unbundling parking
allows residents and tenants who do not own a car generally
to pay less for housing or commercial space. When
combined with other parking reforms, unbundled parking
can support development goals and promote affordability.
• Seattle, WA: The city requires landlords to separate the cost of
parking spaces from residential and commercial rent charges,
allowing tenants to choose whether to pay for parking.
• Santa Monica, CA: The city requires off-street parking spaces
to be sold or leased separately from the purchase or lease of
residential units at new buildings with four or more dwelling
units.
6
PARKING POLICY REFORM
Impact of Changing Mobility Preferences
In recent years, municipalities, real estate industry
professionals, and residents have increasingly supported
parking policy reforms and developments with less parking
because of the growing demand for car-free or car-light
lifestyles and the availability and popularity of new mobility
options, including scooters, bike share, car share, and
ride hailing.
The effects of COVID-19 on land use, transit, and commuting
patterns are not yet fully known, but cities are continuing to
advance parking policy reforms coupled with transit-oriented
development and other policies to support healthy, safe, and
sustainable development.
Parking and Mobility Considerations
Demand for car-light lifestyles is high:
Over 52 percent of people in the United States and
63 percent of millennials would like to live in a place
where they do not need to use a car very often.1
36 percent of trips using shared micromobility
replace a car trip2: By accommodating micromobility
vehicles (dockless scooters, e-bike rentals, etc.) on
site, developers may be able to reduce the number
of automobile parking spaces they are required to
provide.3
Oversupplying parking limits TOD success:
Oversupplying parking in transit-oriented development
(TOD) areas uses up scarce land for a use with a
relatively low return on investment.4
“ Lenders are starting to understand that in some of the
denser, more transit-rich markets there is not as much
need for parking. And they know the enormous cost of
parking. So, there is beginning to be a changing of the
status quo.”
—Michael Lander, founder and president, Lander Group, quoted
in “Toward Zero Parking: Challenging Conventional Wisdom for
Multifamily,” Urban Land magazine
7
1 America in 2015, Urban Land Institute.
2 State of the Industry 2019, North American Bikeshare Association.
3 Connect Commercial Real Estate, “Apartment Dwellers Get Revved Up Over Electric Scooters,” Connect Media: CRE – National Commercial Real Estate News.
4 Richard Wilson, “Parking Policy for Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons from Cities, Transit Agencies, and Developers,” Journal of Public Transportation (2005).
Industry Perspectives
“ We’ve developed with less parking when we’ve felt
the market could support it. The sharing economy
pre-COVID allowed people to live in San Jose without
a car. They could get a car for a minute or a day or a
month with their smartphone and that was all that was
needed. COVID will reset expectations in the near term,
but we believe previous/recent conditions will come
back in the long term.”
——Developer with projects in San Jose
(from 2020 ULI member survey)
Reduced Parking Requirements for Developments That Accommodate Micromobility
From Small Vehicles, Big Impact: Micromobility’s Value for Cities and Real Estate, Urban Land Institute
Developers are hopeful that supporting micromobility options—lightweight, single-person vehicles such as dockless scooters and e-bike
rentals—will become a more common way of reducing parking requirements. After all, installing a docking station would be easier and less
expensive than constructing parking garages, underground parking, or even surface lots. Transportation demand management requirements
for rezoning already incentivize developers to provide noncar alternatives, such as on-site bike-share stations, in exchange for reduced
parking and could be updated to include micromobility. For existing developments, cities can provide tax write-offs for properties that convert
parking spaces into scooter and e-bike racks.
Micromobility intersects with related trends, including decreased demand for parking, says a lender and investor who underwrites
projects in the U.S. Southeast: “Micromobility and other new mobility trends are paramount as they speak to the declining need for
private automobile–focused transportation and the evolution of lifestyle choices simply based on where one may park and drive in a
vehicle. Automobile parking should be targeted to the lowest commercially accepted amount possible.”
As people consider returning to work after the pandemic, there are new concerns that commuters will choose to drive rather than take
public transit, posing logistical issues for buildings that have little to no parking. Encouraging the use of micromobility could help attract
people back to the office regardless of parking capacity. “Five years ago, if you asked a developer in Santa Monica how much parking
would they build if the requirements were reduced by half, they would still build more than the requirement. Today, developers are very
open to building less parking,” says Carter Rubin, transportation technical strategist with the Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities
Climate Challenge. “There are a number of no-parking buildings going up, or buildings with a lot less parking. It’s a very uncertain time,
but the abundance of mobility choices has shown developers that they don’t need to provide two spaces per unit.”
Implications of Changing Mobility Preferences on
Parking and Development
8
PARKING POLICY REFORM
Implications for Municipalities
Parking policies are typically codified through local zoning.
Once adopted, the policies are administered by city staff and
rarely revisited. This approach results in most communities
operating under a set of legacy parking ratios that fail to
respond to actual supply and demand, changing mobility
preferences, and market conditions.
Traditional policies assume that parking should be abundant
and free; parking reform, however, recognizes that too much
parking can be harmful, and that parking should be managed
and priced for efficiency. In response, most jurisdictions are
encouraging more efficient parking management, and many are
significantly reducing or even eliminating minimum off-street
parking requirements.
Implications of Parking Requirements
for Municipalities
Excess parking can negatively affect the bottom
line for cities: Parking often earns only 7 to 42
percent of the tax revenues earned by other land uses.1
Municipalities bear the consequences of
overabundant parking: Impermeable parking
surfaces increase runoff, strain stormwater systems,
and increase infrastructure maintenance costs.2
Parking requirements discourage reuse of
buildings: Required parking for a new use may be
difficult to provide on site. Meeting minimum parking
regulations can lead to the demolition of adequate
building stock, compelling developers to abandon
plans when financially infeasible.
9
1 Chris McCahill, “SSTI researcher: ‘Parking requirements transform cities, cost millions in tax revenues,’” State Smart Transportation Initiative, April 1, 2014.
2 City of El Paso Planning Division, Planning and Inspections Department, Parking Reduction Report, January 22, 2018.
3 PowerPoint presentation (sandiego.gov).
4 Carter Rubin, “San Diego Parking Reform Is a Win for Housing and Climate,” NRDC, March 4, 2019.
5 Becca Cudmore, “To Become a Less Car-Centric City, San Diego Takes Aim at Parking Lot Quotas,” NRDC, June 5, 2019.
6 Daniel Baldwin Hess, “Repealing minimum parking requirements in Buffalo: new directions for land use and development,” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability (April 2017).
By conducting local research ahead of public
engagement and outreach efforts, cities can
proactively address concerns related to parking
policy reforms.
San Diego, California, understood that a common public
concern related to eliminating parking minimums was that
providing less off-site parking could lead to more cars looking
for on-street parking, thereby increasing traffic congestion. To
allay this concern, the city studied existing parking occupancy
rates in “transit priority areas” and in downtown and found
that most areas had fewer occupied spaces than the number
of spaces required by existing parking ratios. Specifically, the
study found that:
• Nearly 90 percent of study sites outside downtown had fewer
occupied spaces than the number of spaces required by code;
and
• Of downtown study sites, 100 percent had lower parking
demand than one space per unit.
Outcomes: Parking demand data collected by the city informed
the city’s successful parking policy updates and associated
public outreach. In 2019, the city council voted eight to one
to eliminate parking requirements for new condominium and
apartment complexes in neighborhoods near mass transit. The
approved policy also sets a maximum of one parking space per
unit for new apartment and condominium projects downtown
and requires developers to unbundle the cost of a parking spot
from monthly rent or a condominium purchase price.3, 4, 5
Early engagement with business associations,
residents’ groups, and others can uncover
(surprisingly) deep support for parking policy
reforms.
Buffalo, New York, anticipated opposition to the idea of
eliminating parking minimums citywide—but this opposition
largely did not materialize. Instead, extensive public engagement
uncovered strong support for proposed parking policy updates.
The city found that:
• Public engagement surveys showed that 74 percent of people
expressed strong support for repealing minimum parking
requirements;
• Public comments centered on the negative impacts of the
overabundance of surface parking lots and a desire to protect
the walkability of existing neighborhoods; and
• The parking policy update was formally endorsed by businesses
and residents’ associations, including the Elmwood Village
Association (a community development organization comprising
business owners and neighborhood residents), and states:
“Minimum parking standards make suburban-style surface lots
a requirement and would have prevented many of Elmwood’s
existing great buildings from being constructed.”
Outcomes: In 2017, Buffalo eliminated parking minimums
citywide because of strong support, including from business
associations and residents’ groups. The city’s planning team had
previously considered moving toward a less significant change
but decided to repeal minimum parking requirements citywide
after finding that their engagement efforts uncovered surprisingly
little opposition to the policy change.6
Data Collection and Public Outreach Lessons
10
PARKING POLICY REFORM
Implications for Real Estate Development
Parking policy reforms that give developers greater control over parking amounts or limit the amount of parking built can serve to
lower project costs and may allow funds to be devoted to community benefits or revenue-generating project amenities.
While some developers, lenders, and investors view parking as a value-add, others cite the high cost of providing it and work to
limit parking to improve a project’s financial performance.
Nelson\Nygaard
Financial Implications of Parking
Provision on Development
Parking usage is going down: Models predict
a reduction in overall parking demand between 10
and 40 percent over the next few decades.1
Parking is a significant expense for
developers: Parking can represent 10 to 18
percent of typical building development costs.2
This can make parking the single most expensive
budget item in a project pro forma.
Building less parking can lower
development costs: For a Los Angeles
shopping center, it was estimated that parking
would increase construction costs by 67 percent
for an above-ground garage and by 93 percent if
parking were placed underground.3
Parking space scale comparison
11
Case Study: Shared, Unbundled
Parking at the Coloradan
The Coloradan is a 19-story mixed-use development in downtown
Denver with 334 for-sale residences and 22,000 square feet of
ground-floor retail space. The project, developed by East West
Partners with equity partner Ascentris, exclusively features shared
and unbundled parking, meaning that parking spaces are not sold
with homes. Instead, residents have the right to lease spaces in a
garage managed by a separate parking management company on a
month-to-month or longer-term basis and all parking is unassigned.
Katie Blum, director of real estate development at East West,
explains, “The cost of parking was not built into the cost of the
homes, making residences less expensive by at least $50,000. This
means that owners pay less if they don’t want a parking lease.”
Blum continues, “Owners have really valued the flexibility. They
can add or subtract parking spaces as their lives and preferences
change. For example, they can add spaces for family members,
guests, and others who come to their home often, or dial down to
as little as they need. The parking leases can be adjusted month to
month. This unbundled model also allows for more visitor parking
in the garage.”
East West believes that shared, unbundled parking at the
Coloradan has been a success. The parking arrangement caused
no issues with securing financing for the project, and 100 percent
of the units were sold less than a year after construction was
completed in 2019. Learn more here.
“ There is an evolution happening with the investment
community to accept no parking or low parking. . . .
We are seeing parking utilization rates go down in new
buildings and technologies like ride share expanding.
So, investors are increasingly buying into the story that
most people don’t need parking day-to-day, especially
if they are in an area that is near to transit and where
traffic is bad.”
—Will Goodman, vice president, Strada Investment Group,
quoted in “Toward Zero Parking: Challenging Conventional
Wisdom for Multifamily,” Urban Land magazine
1 Chrissy M. Nichols, “Are Parking Minimums a Thing of the Past?,” ITE Journal (February 2019).
2 Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II–Parking Costs.
3 Donald Shoup, “Cutting the Cost of Parking Requirements,” Access magazine, Spring 2016.
4 Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II–Parking Costs.
National Average Construction Costs per
Parking Space4
$34,000 Underground
$24,000 Above ground
$10,000 Surface
Real Estate Industry Considerations and Perspectives
12
PARKING POLICY REFORM
Implications for Social Equity and Housing Affordability
Many municipal parking policies increase development costs,
promote land use patterns that limit walkability, and produce
negative environmental consequences disproportionately
borne by those with lower incomes—who are also less likely
to own a personal automobile.
Parking policy reforms can reduce the cost of building new
housing and allow for more efficient land use. Investors and
the real estate industry increasingly understand that no-
and low-parking developments can be successful and less
expensive to build.
Implications of Parking Requirements
on Social Equity and Housing
Affordability
Parking is not an equitable community benefit:
Although cities do not require developers to include
amenities such as refrigerators in their projects, many
require parking. Parking costs are often passed along
to the end user and contribute negatively to housing
affordability.
Requiring excessive parking can prevent
equitable mobility: Overly burdensome parking
requirements can shift affordable housing to less
accessible sites where land prices are lower, but also
where fewer services can be reached by walking, biking,
or transit.1
Charging separately for parking can reduce
housing costs: The inclusion of a garage parking
space adds an average of 17 percent to a unit’s rent.2
DE
R
E
K
R
E
E
V
E
S
13
1 Wenya Jia and Martin Wachs, “Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco” (Research Paper 380, University of California Transportation Center, 1999).
2 C.J. Gabbe and Greg Pierce, “The Hidden Cost of Bundled Parking,” Access magazine, Spring 2017.
3 Jeffrey Tumlin, Sustainable Transportation Planning: Tools for Creating Vibrant, Healthy, and Resilient Communities (Wiley, 2012).
Affordability, Marketability of Housing without
Off-Street Parking
A study conducted in San Francisco showed that residential
units without on-site, off-street parking are more affordable
and make homeownership a reality for more people.3
Units without off-street parking:
• Sold on average 41 days faster than comparable units
with off-street parking; and
• Allowed 20 percent more San Francisco households to
afford a condo unit (compared with units with bundled
off-street parking).
Industry Perspectives
“ To achieve a multifamily development in an area with
lower median incomes, a building was planned without
parking as a means of eliminating any cost in the
structure that was not usable or rentable by residents.
This helped to keep rents lower than they otherwise
would have been and allowed for a maximum density
yield on a site.”
—Lender/investor who underwrites projects in the U.S.
Southeast (from 2020 ULI member survey)
“ Unbundled parking gives more flexibility to the renter
to lower their housing costs if they don’t
need parking.”
—Developer with projects in North Carolina and South
Carolina (from 2020 ULI member survey)
Case Study: Limited Parking at Silver Moon
Lodge Apartments
Silver Moon Lodge is a mixed-use workforce housing development
that opened in 2014 at the periphery of Albuquerque, New Mexico’s
central business district.
The developer, GSL Properties, included just 23 car parking spots
on site for the property’s 154 units. By law, GSL Properties could
have proposed more than 150 spaces for cars. However, by providing
fewer, the developer was able to reduce the site costs associated
with building parking and instead focused on providing features that
would appeal to those who want the option not to own a car.
Silver Moon Lodge was built using New Mexico Mortgage Finance
Authority tax credits. After the project opened, the annual incomes
of eligible renters were capped at $26,460 per year for units
housing one person and $30,240 for units housing two people.
Residents of Silver Moon Lodge who cannot afford to own a car,
or who choose not to do so, are able to get around on foot or by
bicycle. The project includes amenities to support bicycling and is
located near a bus stop and on-site car-share station, enhancing
the convenience of the development for car-free households.
After the project opened, Jessie Lucero, Silver Moon Lodge’s
property manager, noted that the relatively low rate of parking
provision, coupled with the project’s bike-friendly features, aided
in development objectives, saying, “There is only one car parking
space for every six units, but parking has not been an issue
because so many of our residents have chosen to rely on bikes
to get around.” Lucero adds, “Over 95 percent of our units are
occupied. There is a strong market in downtown Albuquerque for
apartments that cater to pedestrians and bicyclists.”
Housing Affordability Benefits
DE
K
K
E
R
/
P
E
R
I
C
H
/
S
A
B
A
T
I
N
I
14
WHY IT IMPACTS HOUSING
Providing off-street parking costs money.
That cost can be for the additional land area
required to construct parking, the cost of
materials to construct a surface parking lot
or parking structure, or the cost of adding a
garage to a residential structure. The cost
of building surface parking spaces generally
starts at $20,000 for each space. A spot in
a parking structure costs about $45,000,
and underground parking can cost upwards
of $75,000 a space. This cost is passed to
the occupant, resulting in higher housing
costs whether or not that person owns
a vehicle. The cost of providing parking
also limits the ability of a developer to
provide more housing units. Land or square
footage that could be devoted to residential
dwellings is relegated to parking. A study
by the Mortgage Bankers Association
found parking spaces outnumber homes
27:1 in Jackson, Wyoming. Philadelphia's
parking density is 3.7 times greater than
that of homes, and Des Moines has
83,141 households and 1.6 million parking
spaces.74
The relationship between parking, land use,
and transportation can become a vicious
cycle. Parking minimums drive up housing
WHAT IT IS
Most zoning ordinances require off-street parking to be provided for development.
Commonly calculated by use, parking requirements are typically the minimum number of
parking spaces that must be provided. Commercial uses may require parking based upon
gross square footage or the number of employees, while residential uses commonly require
parking based upon the number of dwelling units or bedrooms. Reducing or eliminating
the minimum number of parking spaces required is an intervention that can lower the cost
of development to make a housing project more feasible and/or increase the amount of
developable land for more housing units.
Master Plan Case Study: Ann Arbor – Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2021)
The city should expand its current policy for downtown and remove minimum parking requirements from the
Unified Development Code so that all new developments can determine the proper amount of parking based on existing and forecasted demand. A variety of cities across North America, including Buffalo, New York; Hartford, Connecticut; and Edmonton, Alberta have all eliminated parking minimums.
A. In addition to removing minimum parking requirements, Ann Arbor should establish maximum parking ratios in
downtown and other locations well-served by transit, such as along signature transit corridors (see Strategy 10). Maximum parking ratios set a ceiling for how much parking a development can include, while giving
developers the option to provide any amount of parking beneath that threshold.
B. By removing parking minimums citywide and establishing parking maximums in appropriate locations, the
supply of parking will be better aligned with real-world demand. Requiring less land to be set aside for parking can bring a multitude of benefits by increasing housing affordability and freeing up land for alternative uses. (p. 106)
Reduce or Eliminate Minimum
Parking Requirements
/ 59 Form and Context
15
costs, which inadvertently locates more
affordable housing in areas where land is
cheaper. In these "more affordable" areas,
however, the need to drive and park is
prevalent and raises household expenses
for vehicle ownership.75 In this way, parking
minimums contribute to sprawl and support
the need for an automobile as the only
reliable or realistic form of mobility, thereby
reducing access to jobs, education, medical
assistance, recreation, and nearly all other
amenities and opportunities. This decreased
accessibility most severely impacts people
without the means to own an automobile or
who cannot drive.
HOW IT IS USED
Parking requirements can be structured in
a variety of ways. For residential develop-
ment, a minimum number of spaces may be
required per dwelling unit, the number of
bedrooms, or the type of occupant (for ex-
ample, senior living). Parking requirements
can be reduced by decreasing the number
of parking spaces required per dwelling unit.
Instead of 2 spaces per dwelling unit, many
communities now require 1 or 1.25 spaces.
You can also establish different thresholds
based on the number of bedrooms. For ex-
ample, all dwelling units with two bedrooms
or less could be required to have only 1
parking space, but 0.5 additional parking
spaces could be required for each additional
bedroom.
Proximity to transit or a community’s central
business district or the availability of bike
infrastructure and public parking can also
influence parking requirements. Many com-
munities do not require parking in business
districts, either for all uses or for non-resi-
dential uses. Other cities waive parking or
reduce parking for housing located within a
certain distance from a transit stop, such as
half a mile or 500 feet. Another strategy is
to waive a certain number of parking spaces
if there is available on-street parking within
a certain radius. Car parking requirements
could also be reduced if bike parking is
provided.
Additionally, allowing for shared parking
agreements for complementary uses can
be a way to limit the amount of off-street
parking for neighboring parcels. Uses with
a primary parking need during the day can
allocate their parking spaces to uses with a
primary parking need during the evening or
vice versa.
Zoning Ordinance Case Study: Traverse City
Traverse City outlines a vision for transportation that
balances the use of the personal auotomobile with
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other modes.
Chapter 1374 – Circulation and Parking
“The purpose of chapter is:
• To make Traverse City safe and accessible by pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and passengers.
• To give equal consideration to the pedestrian in the design of all public and private parking areas.
• To promote site designs that help to reduce crashes and conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
• To maintain the utility of the public rights-of-way to move goods and people safely and adequately.
• To promote interesting street edges that invite people to walk.
• To encourage a healthier transportation mix.”
Traverse City also reduced their residential parking requirement from 1 per dwelling unit to zero.
Progressive AE
60 / Zoning Reform Toolkit
16
Instituting maximum parking requirements
is another way to limit parking provision
and signals an attitude shift. A development
providing more than a certain percentage
above the minimum parking requirement
may be required to receive special land
use approval for the excess parking. Lastly,
some communities are exploring eliminating
parking requirements altogether. Develop-
ers are allowed to decide the parking the
amount of parking needed.
PARADIGM SHIFT
It is not the responsibility of the local gov-
ernment to guarantee free and convenient
parking for every resident, visitor, and
business owner. Many communities
established parking minimums in the 1950s
and 1960s when developable land was more
plentiful and attitudes about the automobile
were different than they are today.
However, the unintended consequences
of prevalent parking are coming to bear.
Local government units are questioning the
utility of parking as a land use compared
to other more productive uses. A report by
the Urban Land Institute found that “parking
often earns only 7 to 42 percent of the tax
revenues earned by other land uses.”76
Sustainability and quality of life concerns
are other motivations for reducing parking
minimums. Required parking can lead to
increased traffic congestion and pollution,
increased flooding and property damage
from impervious surfaces, and rising
temperatures due to the heat island effect.
Communities across the country are
beginning to rethink their parking policy.
A study by Parking Reform Network of
200 zoning ordinances across the country
found that 20% have eliminated or reduced
parking minimums throughout their entire
jurisdiction.77 The reality is that parking
minimums are generally unncessary in
the zoning ordinance. Developers and
the banks underwriting their financing will
generally consider parking within the overall
marketability of the development. It is in
their best interest to finance/build only
enough parking to meet end-user needs, or
else it won't be marketable. There are two
scenarios that result: either the ordinance
requires more parking than the use actually
requires, pushing up costs for parking that
never gets used, or else the ordinance
requires not enough parking and the
developer will build more than the ordinance
minimum, making a minimum requirement
irrelevant.
POSSIBLE OBSTACLES TO
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT
Residents may say, "If you don’t require
parking for X development, people are
just going to park in my neighborhood."
Depending on the location of the
neighborhood, it is possible this could
happen. Solutions like on-street permit
parking can be explored as well as
parking management districts. Remember
that oftentimes that same neighborhood
is desirable is because of the nearby
amenities.
Reduced parking should be done in tandem
with policies to encourage transit and non-
motorized transportation. This could entail
changing the conversation around “free”
parking and “free” roads. These are being
paid for, but the costs may feel less direct.
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
• Local Housing Solutions – Reduced Parking Requirements
• Parking Reform Network
• Urban Land Institute – Parking Policy Innovations in the United States
/ 61 Form and Context
17