Loading...
09-67Council File # �/ —j�, 7 Green Sheet # 3066059 RESOLUTION AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Presented by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2& WHEREAS, the current design for Light Rail Transit in the Central Corridor may result in the loss of up to 85% of the pazking on University Avenue, which threatens the viability of business on the corridor; and WHEREAS, in July 2008 the City of St. Paul applied to the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant (see attached grant application summary) to demonstrate the feasibility of comprehensive pazking management solutions to help stabilize the existing businesses along University Avenue and increase the potential for future transit-oriented development, including developing Parking Improvement Districts at two station areas in the Central Corridor; and WHEI2EAS, the City's application was based on cutting edge proven practices that encourage comprehensive management of on and off-street parking in commercial and mixed-use districts, which are applicable to inner city commercial strips and suburban shopping centers across the region; and WHEI2EAS, while Metropolitan Council staff rejected the City's application because it did not involve a new development per se, expressing that for this reason the project did not fit with the LCDA guidelines, City staff believe that the application fulfilled the original legislative intent of the LCDA program as well as plans and policies of the Metropolitan Council itself, including the 2030 Regional Development Framework and the draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan; and WHEREAS, the LCDA program was created to enhance opporiunities to create more livable communities, and maintaining the viability of existing businesses in the context of the Central Corridor project and a significant loss of on-street parking is an equally valid and important method of creating a livable community as new development; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED: that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby formally requests that Yhe Metropolitan Council consider revising the Livable Communities Demonstration Account program guidelines to allow comprehensive parking management demonstration projects that bolster the livability of existing business districts. Bosuom Carter Harris Adopted by Council: Date Yeas ✓ ✓ Requested by Department of: By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Approved by Ciry Attomey B Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary By: By: ' Approve b a Date 1 7�7 U By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �'1 � � DepaRmenUOffice/Council: Date InRiated: co-�°°°°� 15�1AN-09 Green Sheet NO: 3066059 ContaM Person 8 Phone: Department Sent To Person InkiallDate Samantha Henninqson o o�ncu �_� pg�$g4� t ouncil De arhnent Director �`�9^ 2 'ty Clerk �-tiN CI¢rk _ � j Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number I ' ' j For Routing Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order � � I E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: ToWI # ot Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approve City Council resolution formally reques[ing that Metropolitan Council consider revising the Livable Communities Demonshation Account program guidelines to allow comprehensive parking management demonstration projects [hat bolstex the livability of existing business districts. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Pereonal Service Controcts Must Answer the Foilowing Questions: Planoing Commission 1 Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contred for this department? CIB Commitlee Yes No Civil Service Gommisson 2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Vssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When. Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funtling Source: Activity Number: Fi nancia l Information: (Explain) January 15, 2009 12:09 PM Page 1 0�-�7 Frequently-Asked Questions Aboutthe Comprehensive Parking Managemeni Demonsiration Project Draft: August 4, 2008 In February, it became apparent that because of changes in the design of Light Rail Transit (LR'1� in the Central Corridor (longer trains, more pedestrian crossings, and infrastructure for future stations) more than 84% of the 1,150 parking spaces on i3niversity Avenue would be eliminated. This will put further stress and uncertainty on the existing business and property owners, many of whom already don't have enough parking. To address this problem, the City applied to the Met Council in July for $3 million in grants to implement the Comprehensive Parking Management Demonstration Project to demonstrate breakthrough strategies to resolve parking problems. This paper answers the most frequently-asked quesHons about the proposal. Drawing 1. What is the plan? the loss of on-street parking due to LRT. The City would use funding from the Met Council to demonstrate an integrated system for managing on- and off-street parking in a comprehensive way. It would purchase computerized license plate recognition (LPR) technology and use it to aggressively enforce on-street parking regulations in the Centra] Corridor, on Grand Avenue, and in the existing and future permit parking zones around both of them. At the Raymo�d and Snelling station ueas, the Ciry would lease off-street parking lots and use the Met Council grant to improve them into shared public parking lots. To pay the rent and operate and maintain them over time, the CiTy would create Parking Improvement Districts and fund them with net revenue from the parking meters and a special assessment on the benefiting property owners. 2. WhaYs the theory behind the plan, and has it ever been put into practice? Donald Shoup, in The High Cost of Free Parking (American Planning Association, 2005), believes that market forces (in the form of aggressive enforcement of on-street regulations and developing affordable shared off-street parking facilities) are the only efficient way to allocate pazking supply and demand. He believes that the quality of the parking is more important than the quantity, and that existing zoning codes are irrational because they are based on the � demand for the area as a whole. Shoup's ideas have been successfulVy applied in Old Pasadena, which installed parking meters in 1993. They use net revenue from the meters and a special assessment to finance parking improvements, to subsidize 90 minutes of free parking in the public ramps, and to operate the Old Pasadena Management District, a non- profit which manages and promotes Old Pasadena. Locally, the City leased a church parking bt at Grand and Snelling in 1994, improved it with a grant, assessed the benefiting property owners for the operating costs, and contracted with them to manage it. U9 7 3. How can License Plate Recognition technology better manage on-street parkiag? Because the City has such limited parking enforcement staff, and because enforcing parking time limits is so laborvintensive, serious enforcement is extremefy sporadic and razely sustained. Bui new technologies could provide a Guantum increase in parking enforcement, like computerized License Plate Recognition equipment that can read a license plate at a normal driving speed, record its location and time with incontestable accuracy, match it against a database of permit holders, check to see if the vehicle has parked longer than the posted limits, and print out a ticket. The CiTy would use Met Council funding to purchase LPR equipment and use it to enforce time limits on public streets, in public lots and ramps, and in permit parking areas. For a small fee paid to the City, LPR could also be used to monitor parking in private lots, and give the owners the data they need to better enforce their own private parking regulations. The City has applied for funding for two LPR units, which would give it the capacity to aggressively enforce on-street pazking regulations in the Central Corridor and on Grand Avenue, and to sustain enforcement over time. 4. How can parking meters increase retail sales? If they are priced high enough and the time limits are aggressively enforced, parking meters are an effective too{ for turning-over on-street parking by discouraging employees, business owners, and residents of the apartments above from parking up valuable customer spaces all day long. [n Saint Paul, the only areas outside of downtown with parking meters ace the Raymond and Snelling station areas. About half of these meters wiU be eliminated when LRT is developed, and the City proposes to relocate them, and to install new meters on nearby commercial block faces in the two station areas. This is intended to create incentives to use the off street parking more intensively as well as to generate revenue to help pay for the shared public parking, as was done in Old Pasadena where, instead of harming the commercial strip, parking meters (combined with 90 minutes of "free" off street parking) sparked a sustained growth in sales. On the following chart, compare the retail sales ta7ces of Old Pasadena (which installed parking meters in 1993) and Plaza Pasadena, a suburban mall with tons of free parking, which was developed in the 1990s with a huge public subsidy and demolished in 2000. Rgure 7G-0. Pasadena Retail SatesTax Revenue �_ ��:.r, =' v.., i .,,F` .............. -... - .... --._�.. Parking meters � ; _-x,�, installed in Old Pasadena in 1993 ,-, r :��. �,e3 ��- �_ _, .,, -:a; Old Pasadena Sales Taxes Plaza Pasadena Sales Taxes (demolished, 2000) ve; �L'dGSSxaa^a — � — ?fly�.so:nArct — o-�iyz'?�'sdw� �S:.u:���e oy-� � 5. How can permit parldng zones betfer manage on-street parking? While permit parking zones are not popular, they are an effective way to increase the utilization of off- street parking lots and protect surrounding residential neighborhoods from being overwhelmed by commercial and commuter parking, which will be essential when LRT becomes operational. The City is considering creating them at in least the two station areas (and possibly all along the Central Corridor), and enforcing them aggressively with LPR technology. These permit parking zones mieht allow 2 hour customer parking except by permit, which would allow residents and employees in the neighborhood to park for longer periods. With 2-hour time limits on the parking meters on commercial block faces aggressively enforced with LPR technology, and permit parking available, employees and business owners in the Central Corridor would be encowaged to park in slightly more remote locations in order to free up valuable close-in parking for customers. 6. Why were these areas chosen for the grant? The Raymond and Snelling station areas were chosen for this demonstration project because both areas already have parking meters, both areas have significant underutilized off-street parking, both areas have already had parking design charrettes, and both areas have business and property owners who have been highly engaged in trying to address the many challenges of LRT development. In addition, it wasn't possible to identify a single area east of Snelling that had at1 of the factors listed above. Grand Avenue was chosen to demonstrate the effectiveness of LPR technology by itself (without expensive capital improvements) because it has just completed an exhaustive communiTy process looking at how to improve the parking situation and, while consensus on more comprehensive steps was elusive, everyone agreed that they wanted better enforcement of the on-street parking regulations. 7. Why'is stormwater management so important? The key to maximizing off-street parking resources is to look at individua] blocks without regard to property lines and to design shared parking lots that integrate the existing investment in parking with comprehensive stormwater management and pedestrian and vehicular access systems. The key to maximizing the long-term redevelopment potential in the Central Corridor is to design these shared parking resources in a way that can be intensified as the demand for parking increases due to more intense Transit Oriented Development. Though the block behind the northwest corner of Raymond and University is unusual in its size and terrain (with an almost 20' drop from its northeast to southwest corners), the communiTy design charrette held in July of 2008 suggested the following ways to integrate stormwater management and pedestrian and vehicular access systems. An existing stand of mature Hun oaks (1) would be retained as a vegetated filter strip. A rain garden (2), treatment terrace (3), infliltration C�R`15�:54tFL si: �i`J r,` Y" n� � ��''� ', � + i�RA�(up's0lx.�C e.�p ^ � � .. . . _ - fy^P': .�•. ��XN maWra �� , � . f ���i�� . �A�. � , " � � y . "�n a�y�� WrkN_� s- � 2 __.s's.-_ � t� '�"t.. ' a t ._"._-.,�,. .. - � � . 3 � '��- w»� 5 3 # .s . d 4 ���,� �� ��.ms N J1�t.CL3tT_HlMNI.� r... �, s�' ��\ _ . � 4+ ....�.�,�__. f O'-/-6 `7 trench (4), and swale (5) would be developed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater. Infiltration planters (6) would be planted along Universily Avenue to absorb stormwater and improve the pedestrian environment by creating an attractive buffer between cars and pedestrians. When redeveloped, a green roof (7) might be installed on top of the historic Mack Building at the southwest corner. In the low point at the southwest corner of the block, a small stormwater pond (8) might be developed. And tying all of these together, and providing access to the shazed pazking lots would be an integrated vehicular and pedestrian access system designed to accommodate future pazking decks as development presswe warranted. 8. What parlung improvements are being proposed for the Raymond station area? Building on the stormwater management plan described above, the design charrette suggested the following improvements to integrate the entire block. (1) As much as possible, the existing investment in parking would be preserved, since about a third of all parking has been repaved in the past 5 years. (2) A new road would be constructed in the western third of the block by connecting the existing Hunt Place through to Universiry Avenue, and in the eastern third by building a new service way behind the commerciai buildings on Raymond, which will iose their on-street truck loading when LRT is deveSoped. (3) Because of the new street, and the potential for vacating the redundant public east west alley, the westernmost parce{s become a prime redevelopment site, potentiatly capable of amacting a I2 story hotel. (4) With the central stormwater management and pedestrian amenities, with parking lots that can be expanded into parking decks, and with new access off of Hunt Place, the central parcel also becomes a prime redevelopment opportunity. (5) Similarly, the new noRh-south service way (with centralized refuse and recycling facilities and an attractive pedestrian environment connecting courtyards behind the buildings), greatly enhances the redevelopment potential of the easternmost parcel. (6) Attractively paved and landscaped pedestrian walkways between buildings on Raymond Avenue connect them with the shared public parking ]ots in the center of the block. � y-G 7 9. What improvements are proposed for t6e Snelling stafion area? Two design efforts in the past 3 years have looked at the long-term potential for the blocks in the Snelling and University station area. The 20�5 "AlA ISQ Charrette" looked at the northeast corner, and the 2006 "Snelling Avenue Greenscapes Chanette," looked at the entire Snelling station area. From these, rough concepts have been developed that show the potential for developing shazed parking structures behind both block faces and, because of the grade change, even the possibility of townhouses built above a new parking structure behind the northwest corner. Other sites for new commercial or mixed use buildings are suggested in the ]ot just north of CV S Pharmacy in the west block, and at two infill sites in the east biock. cannaa� crealea rtucn Sn.93meg ��e6a &ivee2 ctI�1�B aeteP 2Q@C dw TSC Another effort would be needed to look at the short term potential for developing shared parking lots, but here, as at the Raymond station area, the City proposes to lease private parking lots and to develop them into shared public parking lots suppoRed by integrated stormwater management, vehicular access, and pedestrian infrastructure. For both corners, the shared parking lots would be designed in a way that could be developed into parking structures should there be sufficient demand in the future. 10. How would the city lease private parking lots? By State sYatute (Cha�r 459.14), cities can lease private land, make capital improvements, enforce its parking regulations, and assess operating costs on benefiting property owners. Because the CiTy will lease land in different ownerships, it will seek to negotiate a lease with a Limited Liability Corporation formed by the owners of the various pazcels. Ownership shares would be determined by the amount of land they are leasing to the CiTy, and an LLC agreement would define procedures for making collective decisions. The term will need to be long enough for the City to depreciate its capital improvements, probably 15 years for a parking lot and 25 years for a ramp. As a disincentive to terminate the lease early, the lease would provide for a pro-rata recapture of the City's investment upon early termination of the lease that resulted in no development or undesirable development. As an incentive to encourage denser development, the lease would provide for City forgiveness of its investment upon early termination of the lease for desirable Transit-Oriented Development that also 'addressed the parking needs of the station area. 11. How would the shared parking lots be operated and maintained? The City proposes to create two Parking Improvement Districts at the two station areas and to pay for the operating costs of the public parking facilities from two sources: net revenue from the parking meters that are dedicated to the station areas that generate it, and from a special assessment on the property owners that benefit from the shared public parking facilities. The assessment formulas would be allocated according to a formula that measured the benefit each property received from the shared pubtic parking facilities. This formula might start with the parking required according to the Zoning Code because it can . __ _ ,. � _ __. __ �� ,�� . v��7 be easily quantified and is based on a long history of use, and then factor in the distance from the lots. Tn this way, closer properties with high parking requirements would pay a gTeater shaze than more distant properties with lower pazking requirements. The formula would be adjusted over time as the uses in the buildings, and their parking requirements, changed. Because the operating costs would be equitably shared among a larger base, the costs for individual buildings and businesses (who usually pay for operating assessments through their rent) would be low. Every year, the Advisory Council composed of stakeholders in the Parking Tmprovement District would recommend an assessment level to the City Council, which would assess the wsts. To empower the local business community, the City would then contract with the local business association to operate and maintain the parking. In the Grand and Snelling commercia) node, this has formed the nucleus of their business association, and in O{d Pasadena, the PID led to the creation of the Old Pasadena Management District, with an annual budget of $1.5 million. 12. Why would private property owners agree to lease their parking lots to t6e City? In the short term, private property owners will benefit from the rent they are paid for their ]and, a slight decrease in their property tases for the now ta�c exempt use, and a reduction in their cost to operate and maintain their separate pazking bts. In the middle term, private business owners will benefit from an increase in business from customers (who now have accessible, attractive, and affordable pazking that serves all the parking stakeholders in the entire commercial node), and property owners will benefit from increased rents. In the long term, property owners will benefit from voluntarily participating in comprehensive redevelopment proposals for the rational redevelopment parcels defined by the comprehensive parking improvements. Since state legislation essentially prohibited the use eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, the past practice of hofding out for top dollar through a condemnation procedure has gone away. Now, the best way to maximize return on redeveloping commercia{ real estate is for the property owner to voluntarily sell to a developer of a comprehensive redevelopment project, or to participate as an equity partner in a limited liability development corporation. It is anticipated that the cooperation fostered by the properiy owners who lease parking lots to the City will evo]ve into cooperative and comprehensive redevelopment projects in the future. 13. Why would private business owners agree to be assessed for the operating costs? Under the terms of most commercial leases, special assessments are passed on to the business tenants. These businesses would need to compare their slightly increased costs against the benefits that include replacing the parking lost on University Avenue, developing shared parking lots for customers, and creating slightly more remote parking for employees in the surrounding permit parking zones. Longer term, the businesses would benefit from the excess parking capacity that would allow them to meet the parking requirements in the Zoning Code as the commercial intensity increases in the station area, and from the cooperative framework the PID provides for improving and promoting the commercial district. 14. W hat happens next? The City and the Met Council are working together to address the Loss of pazking in the Central Cottidor. Met Council staff are identifying ways to address on-street parking loss block by block and businesses are strongly encouraged to complete a survey (available online at www.centralcorridor.ore). The CiTy has submitted the grant application summazized above, and the Met Council will decide in December whether or not to approve the grant. If successful, the City and its partners wi11 develop detailed designs, draft leases, and develop financial models to enable business and property owners at the two station areas to make informed cost-benefit decisions about leasing land and being assessed. With strong voluntary support, the City will develop the shared parking facilities in 2009, a year before LRT construction starts. This fall, City staff will be conducting design charrettes at two additional station areas in the Central Corridor (yet to be selected), in order to be prepared for another potential grant application next year. 0