E.1. 48. Issue: Section 21.07.060F.15., Bicycle Parking Facilities and 71. As a follow up to Issues #48 and #71 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum, staff recommends several amendments to address development standards for bicycle parking. The amendments respond to recent information provided by the Bicycle Plan project team and comments provided by Commissioner John Weddleton. The first amendment would be a requirement that all bicycle parking be secure. Although the Department has always assumed and intended that any required bicycle parking space would include a lockable bike rack or secure enclosure, the 2007 public hearing draft does not specifically require this. Without some basic requirement for security, an applicant could legally comply with the minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces with just a paved area without a secure bicycle rack. Staff supports the addition of a basic provision to ensure that required bicycle parking spaces are secure and will not damage the bicycle. The second amendment would ensure adequate dimensions especially a minimum width for bicycle parking spaces. Some bicycle racks (with narrow tire slots that can damage bicycle wheels) do not contain enough space between bicycle slots. Not all the spaces can be used at once. This can result in a significant undersupply of usable bicycle spaces. In some cases these have also been reported to bend the tires, because only the tire is secured in place and there is no support for holding up the weight of the bike frame. A review of other communities’ bicycle parking provisions as well as information received through the bicycle parking team suggested that the code should provide a few dimensional standards for bicycle parking spaces just as it does for automobile parking spaces. Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the parking area for bicycles should be maintained on a similar basis as automobile parking, including during winter. Because basic year-round usability of bicycle parking is dependent on winter maintenance, staff does not object to such a provision. Lastly, Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the way subsection 21.07.090K expresses the minimum required amount of bicycle parking in terms of individual “bicycle parking spaces” may be confusing to readers. Most people are not used to thinking of bicycle parking in terms of a “bicycle parking space”. Staff acknowledges that at first this seems unusual or clunky in everyday conversation. However, the term “bicycle parking space” is almost universally applied among zoning ordinances. Eleven of twelve zoning ordinances reviewed by staff use this term. This term is sufficiently general to accommodate the variety of forms of bicycle parking, and is consistent with the required parking spaces for automobiles. Staff recommends providing a term and definition for “bicycle parking space” in chapter 14 such as “Bicycle Parking Space: An area and structure such as a bike rack or U bar or a facility such as a locker or portion of a lockable room, that is used for parking and securing a bicycle.” (Exact definition wording would be discussed in the Chapter 14 issue-response.) Staff Recommendation: Page 45, lines 13-19, amend to read as follows. Most of the underlined changes in subsection “a” were already been recommended in issue-response #35 of the August 28, 2008 Issue-Response memorandum: Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 35 15. Bicycle Parking Facilities a. Required b[B]icycle parking or a sign leading thereto shall be located in an area visible from the primary entrance area and shall be no farther from a primary entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space, not including designated accessible parking, carpool, or vanpool spaces. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall provide security from theft and damage. A required bicycle parking space shall include a securely fixed structure that allows the bicycle wheel and frame to be locked to the facility, and that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to the bicycle, or shall be in a bicycle locker, lockable bicycle enclosure or lockable room. c. A required bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of 6 feet long and 2 feet wide. d. The surfacing of bicycle parking facilities shall be designed and maintained to be clear of mud and snow. e. Bicycle parking shall not obstruct pedestrian walkways, building access, or use areas. Page 84, line 34, amend to read, “No automobile or bicycle parking facility or loading facility shall be permitted in any required landscaping area.” 48. Issue: 21.07.090K., Bicycle Parking Spaces This is follow-up to issue 48 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum to address additional comments by several Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) members regarding the required number of bicycle parking spaces on page 94 of the Parking Section. The concern raised is that Title 21 should more strongly support bicycle parking spaces, to achieve a more ambitious but arguably attainable goal for a substantially greater percent of trips to be made by bicycles, especially in the urban centers. The threshold which triggers a requirement for secure bicycle parking should be much lower than in the Public Hearing Draft. Many multifamily and mixed-use developments that need bicycle parking will fall under the recommended threshold. There should almost always be the standard 3 or 4 secure bicycle parking spaces near an entrance of a non-residential or multifamily building. Other cities require this. Portland, OR, for example, requires secure bicycle parking for residential buildings of 4 or more units, 1 space per every 2 units for projects under 50 units, and 1 space per 4 units for projects with over 50 units. For these reasons, requirements such as the following are proposed: - Provide a minimum or 4 bicycle parking spaces for all multifamily projects with 4 or more dwellings. Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 35 - Provide 1 bicycle parking space for every 2 dwelling units for developments of up to 50 units and 1 space per 4 dwelling units for developments that exceed 50 units. - Non-residential uses with fewer than 20 automobile parking spaces required should receive a bonus of some sort for voluntary installation of the standard 4-space secure bicycle rack. - Non-residential uses with 20 – 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide 4 secure bicycle parking spaces - Non-residential uses with more than 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide a number of bicycle parking spaces that is equal to 8 percent of the required number of automobile spaces. Staff Response: Staff supports providing a bonus incentive for more bicycle parking. Refer to issue-response 87 below. However, the subsection that requires bicycle parking as recommended by the Public Hearing Draft is purposefully short, simple and conservative. Title 21 does not currently require bicycle parking, and the Title 21 Rewrite is a first step for the community to become familiar with a minimum bicycle parking requirement. A short, simple and conservative requirement provides a safe opportunity to become aware of any basic issues or problems that may arise during its initial implementation. The next step would be the preparation of the Bicycle Plan, currently in progress. The Bicycle Plan will provide a better opportunity to do a more comprehensive evaluation of the community’s bicycle parking needs and aspirations. It can document/demonstrate the need for bicycle parking for specific land uses. It may identify more ways to incentivize bike parking in the zoning ordinance. Once adopted by the municipal Assembly, it will provide goals, objectives and policy basis for more comprehensive bicycle parking standards. There are many zoning ordinances in large and small communities around the U.S. that have more comprehensive Bicycle Parking requirements than what Title 21 Rewrite proposes. Such ordinances result from a community involvement process and bicycle parking demand studies. They are also tailored to the needs and aspirations of specific communities. The Title 21 Rewrite does not provide that level of analysis for Anchorage. Until the Bicycle Plan is completed, Title 21 should remain conservative to avoid problems that can arise from unnecessarily onerous regulations. Information provided by the Bicycle Plan’s project team (see August 28 issue-response memo) seems to support such a phased approach. Pending the completion and implementation of the Bicycle Plan, staff recommends that the bicycle parking requirement in the Title 21 Rewrite be a simple starter provision. Upon further examination, it appears that even the draft provision on page 94, lines 6-9 of the public hearing draft contains an accessory requirement that may be too high for some small businesses. Specifically, it states that any development that partakes of a parking reduction must provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. For example, if a small establishment providing doggie day care gets a parking reduction from a total of six required spaces down to 4 required spaces through the use of two on-street curb parking spaces, it would have to also provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. Does a tiny use that involves delivery of large goods (such as an animal) and which parks fewer than 6 patrons at a one time really need 4 bicycle parking spaces? It is not Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 4 of 35 clear to staff, nor is there yet a guiding plan or policy basis to help decide. This kind of question is better left to the Bicycle Plan analysis, and in the meantime the public hearing draft provision should be simplified further.