Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

have considerable discretion in decidin~ how many spaces to require. They must estimate the [ar~est working shift, the largest number of visitors exbected at any one time, and how many cars they will park. If interpreted ~iter- a~fy, this requirement appears to ~Jarantee that the parking supply will accommodate the hi§host conceivable number of cars that could ever park. at a taxi stand--and that most park- ing spaces will be vacant most of the time. This parking requirement raises a raft of questions. First. requidn~ one parkin§ space per employee and one space per taxi implies that a[l employees wiU drive to the taxi s~and alone, park their own cars. and then take pos- session ufa parked taxi. Is this a reasonable assumption? Might not. for example, some taxi drivers take their cabs home and return with them the next day? Second. requiring one space per employee on the largest workin~ shift ~mpiies planners know how many employ- ees will work. on this shift. Workin~ shifts may vary seasonally with sharp but infrequent peaks. The use of taxis may dso durfn~ heaw downpours, for example, but Fall at other times when the weather is pleasant enough forwa[k- ' lng. So how many employees are we really talking aqout? Third. requirin)~ suFticient spaces to accommodate the largest number of visitors that may be expected at any one time implies planners can know this number, which they cannot. Who, after aU. are the visitors to a taxi stand, and why would they want to park there? Most people who visit a taxi stand are probably without their cars. which is why they want a taxi. The lar§est number of visitors expected at any one time [s impossible to know in advance and wiU. in any event, occur bray rarely. Finally, why should a cib/require any parking spaces at all for a taxi stand, other than :hose required to parK the taxis? Sadly, the complicated and puzztin§ tax[- stand parkin~ requirement is not an anomafy, or at [east not much of one. llqrou~hout the U.S., parking requirements are laden with similarly basin§ rules, which combine to make the provi- sion of parkin~ Ion~ on regulation and shoK( on common sense. But we should not be too quick to blame planners for this situation--planners am bein§ asked, after all, to perform a hard iob for which they have not been trained. Setting Une parkin§ requirement for any single land use is a challen§e, and planners must set parkin§ requirements for hundreds of land uses. In its aooa, the Plann/n§ Advisory Service (PAS) ~ound 66a land uses with distinct parking require- Function of Land Use. Robert MitcheU and Chester Rapkin descdbe vahous meanin§s of the term: The term "land use' {used so ~requently in planning) has several specific meanings. It may refer to buildings or other improve- the occupancy of the land. or to the kind term ~s employed without bein~ ~efned specifically,s Planners usually require parkin~ spaces for land uses according to this last meanin§: the major activities of the establishments based on the land. The variety of uses and standards cited in the PAS Report is astonish. lng: battin~ cages and body-piercin§ studios. halls and detoxification centers, jewelry stores and junkyards, [ibraries and liquor stores, and truck-wash Facilities, Because parking demand vades greatly among these [and uses, and the parking demand var(es greatly among different cities for the same land use, setting the parking requirements for eve~ land use in every ciW is a daunting task~ {see web-based enhancements). After identifying the land use the second step tn setting a parking requirement is to decide how many parking spaces to require per.., per what? TO answer this question, planners seek to identify relevant Factors that might he~p to predict parking demand. With no help to be found in textbooks on land-use and transporta- tion plannin§ (bul perhaps with some inspira- !ion from Rube Guldber§ or Heath Robinson)a, ZONINGPRACTICE 140