Boulder planning board backs broad parking reform, presses for stronger bike‑parking and TDM follow-up

The City of Boulder Planning Board on May 20 recommended that City Council adopt two ordinances that together eliminate minimum off‑street parking requirements for new development and update on‑street residential parking management — and added a suite of advisory recommendations to strengthen bicycle parking and transportation demand management (TDM).

The board voted to recommend ordinance 86‑96, which would remove citywide mandatory off‑street parking minimums and update bicycle parking design standards, and ordinance 8,700, which would expand neighborhood permit parking rules and introduce new permit types and pilot paid parking in a high‑demand neighborhood. The board also recorded a set of advisory motions — including urging staff and council to exempt bicycle parking from floor‑area‑ratio calculations, to require more charging and cargo‑bike‑capable long‑term bike spaces, and to study retroactive application of bike‑parking rules — and it continued a separate, still‑draft TDM ordinance for another meeting on May 27.

Why it matters: The ordinances reflect a substantial shift in Boulder zoning practice. Removing minimum off‑street parking requirements is intended to reduce the city’s reliance on auto‑oriented development patterns and to free up land for other uses. Board members and staff said those changes must be coupled with stronger bike infrastructure, clearer on‑street parking rules and a funded approach to TDM so walking, biking and transit alternatives are available as parking supply is rethought.

What the ordinances do and staff rationale Lisa Hood, principal planner in Planning and Development Services, described the package as the finish line for an AMPS (parking) project that began in 2014. “This is a big step,” Hood said, summarizing ordinance 86‑96 as eliminating minimum off‑street parking requirements citywide and updating numerous code cross‑references and bike‑parking design standards. Hood and staff told the board that their long‑range parking counts show supply often exceeds observed occupancy across land‑use types, a core justification for relaxing minimums.

Sam Bromberg, senior project manager for Community Vitality, and Chris Hagelin, transportation project manager, presented the on‑street parking and TDM pieces. Bromberg said the on‑street package would lower household residential permit allocations from two per licensed driver to one per licensed driver, replace guest/visitor permits with 25 annual day passes and a pricier “flex” permit, and give the city manager authority to cap permits in a zone at creation time when the curb supply cannot support all demand. Bromberg also described a proposed pilot in the Goss Grove neighborhood to convert time‑limited curb parking to mobile paid parking and to test whether revenue can fund free EcoPass transit passes for residents.

Hagelin summarized the still‑draft TDM ordinance, which uses a three‑tier approach: small projects would be exempt, mid‑sized projects would have prescriptive TDM elements and larger projects would face trip‑reduction targets, annual monitoring and financial guarantees held by the city to pay for ongoing TDM programs. “The cornerstone of the ordinance is the use of financial guarantees,” Hagelin said, because effective TDM services such as EcoPasses have ongoing annual costs. Staff said they plan to return with a draft TDM ordinance in late summer and asked the board for policy guidance now.

Board concerns and advisory votes Board members pressed staff on multiple practical and legal points: how the state parking law (House Bill 24‑1304) limits local minimums within transit service areas, how ADA parking would be handled, how PUDs and prior approvals are treated when city requirements change, and whether developers might still build more parking than necessary without stronger tools.

After debating the package, the board voted to recommend adoption of both ordinances with recorded votes in favor. The board then adopted several advisory recommendations (votes recorded on each): - Urge Council and staff to modify the ordinance or pursue a separate code change to remove bicycle parking from floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) calculations (motion passed). The board said FAR treatment discourages developers from providing adequate long‑term bike parking unless the city explicitly excludes it from FAR. - Request that long‑term bicycle parking be charging‑capable, recommending that new long‑term bike rooms be wired so a standard outlet is available near bike spaces (board voted to require charging capability within about six feet of spaces or to otherwise make spaces charging‑capable). Board members stressed safety and fire‑code considerations and asked staff to propose construction‑feasible language. - Recommend that a meaningful share of long‑term bike spaces be dimensioned for larger and cargo bikes (board recommended at least 20% where more than five long‑term spaces are required), and that cargo‑bike spaces be clearly signed to prevent noncargo bikes from occupying them. - Ask staff to examine elevator size where long‑term bike parking is accessed solely by elevator so larger bikes can be moved safely. - Recommend development of a phased, retroactive approach to upgrade existing bike parking to meet the new standards (board asked staff to study triggers for retrofits and legal/financial implications). - Ask for monitoring for three years after the ordinance’s effective date to compare actual parking provided in new development with previous parking minimums and to track whether the reform produces more or less on‑site and curb parking.

Roll call and next steps The board’s formal recommendation on ordinance 86‑96 and ordinance 8,700 will go to City Council for final action. Planning Board also voted to continue detailed review of the TDM ordinance — the portion that sets financial guarantees and trip targets — to the May 27 Planning Board meeting so members can provide more focused, written guidance after hearing this evening’s discussion.

Quotes “The purpose of you reviewing this tonight is to make a recommendation to city council on ordinances 86‑96,” Lisa Hood told the board. Sam Bromberg described the Goss Grove paid‑parking pilot as a test of whether curb pricing can fund EcoPasses for residents and “how switching to paid parking changes parking demand and behavior.” Chris Hagelin said the TDM approach rests on ongoing funding: “the developers or the property owners pay the annual financial guarantees, which are held by the city and then dispersed to the employer tenants or residential property managers to implement the TDM plans.”

Ending City staff will send the package to City Council with the Planning Board recommendation and the board’s advisory motions and asked to bring a formal TDM ordinance back for board review on May 27. The board’s actions reflect an effort to pair major zoning changes with practical steps and monitoring so the city can coordinate how on‑site private parking, curbside management, and multimodal alternatives change together.