|
direct ~'ee (i.e., areas outside of downtown, where &es m~e almost
<br /> always charged), Using these studies to determine minimum
<br /> tequitemenm means ~hat such tcquitemenm are based on the
<br /> demand for parking at a price of zero, which leads to a vicious
<br /> circle of an oversupply of"free" (but subsidized by somebody)
<br /> parking virtually everywhere in the metropolitan landscape.
<br /> The most popular, medaod for determining off-street parking
<br />requirements may be to.borrow from the ordinances of other
<br />communities. To a large degree, it's difficult co fault this approach.
<br />A.PA would not be publishing this repor~ ifir thought chat
<br />borrowing standards from other cites---or ar least having an
<br />awareness of the range of standards that exist--was an unacceptable
<br />approach. When A~PA's Planning Advisory Service (PAS) receives
<br />inquiries related to off-street parking standards, PAS provides
<br />subscribers with Ordinances, studies, and g~ides such az this one.
<br /> Adoption of another jurisdicrion's standards, without
<br />consideration of local socioeconomic standards, comprehensive
<br />pian, political environment, the input of the citizens, and.legal
<br />review according to state enabling legislation, among other
<br />issues, may result in standards char just do not fit. Further, the
<br />most popular standards are often derived from ITE information,
<br />the limitations of which are noted above.
<br /> A number of PAS' Reports and other APA publications
<br />provide useful discussions of parking standards--in some as the
<br />central topic (e.g., Off-Street Parking Requirements, PAS Report
<br />432, and Flexible ?arkingRequirements, PAS Report 377) while
<br />in others az an integral issue linked to other popular planning
<br />topics (e.g., Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Crse Regulations,
<br />PAS Report 468, and The Transportation~Land-Use Connection,
<br />PAS Repor~ 448). ITE.has produced a model ordinance for
<br />shared parking (1995). In addition to A_PA and [TE, other
<br />available sources of in~ormarion include model
<br />recommendations from the National. Parking Association
<br />(1992), the Urban Land Institute (1999), and the Eno
<br />Foundation (1990).
<br /> Transportation and Parking consultants.are sometimes hired
<br />to a~sisr in determining parking standardS. These consultants
<br />often provide analysis of parking issues within a particular
<br />geographic subset ora community, such as the downtown or a
<br />partic~arly busy commercial district. Al'though such studies are
<br />usually independent and authoritative, it's important to realize
<br />they may include gerrain assumptions (about expectations
<br />related to transit use, for example) not necessarily consistent
<br />with a community's long-term vision.
<br /> Perhaps the most. effective way to analyze demand is to get
<br />out in the community to look around and record, information.
<br />When you obtain information about parking occupancy in
<br />e.,dsdng facilities, ask questions about the inevitability (or [ack
<br />thereof) of similar conditions for Future development. In an
<br />APA 2001 audio conference, "Effective Community. Parking
<br />Standards;" one expert recommended that communities closely
<br />e.,mmine their off-streer parking-standards every five to 10 yeats.
<br />
<br />Zoning Code provisions that Respond to
<br />and/or Influence Parking, Demand
<br />What follows is an overview of a range of strategies communities
<br />have adopted that go beyond standard minimum parking
<br />requirements. Many of these strategies recognize and respond to
<br />unique factors associated with different parrs of the community in
<br />quesdon (e.g., commercial strips, dowmown districts).
<br />
<br /> fason Wirrenber~ is a planner with rte z?[inneapo{is City ?lanning
<br />!4 Depar~nenr.
<br />
<br /> Mixed-Use Development and
<br /> Shared Parking
<br />The overall number of parking spaces serving multiple uses in
<br />close proxSmity to one another may be significantly reduced
<br />through shared parking arrangements. Sharing parking allows
<br />:more efficient use 0fland compared to providing dedicated
<br />parking spaces for each use. Carefully crafted shared parking
<br />arrangements between two or more uses can reasonably meet
<br />peak demand, particularly in mixed-use areas or on mixed-use
<br />or mukiple-use sites. The Victoria Transport Policy institute
<br />(2002) notes that shared parking is also most appropriate where:
<br />
<br />· a specific parking problem exists;
<br />· land values and parldng facility costs are high;
<br />· clustered development is desired; .
<br />· traffic congestion or vehicle pollution are significant
<br /> problems; and
<br />· adding pavement is undesikable.
<br />
<br /> Shared parking a~rangements/ecognize that various uses have
<br />different peak operating hours. A common example is shared
<br />parking between restaurant and office uses. The parking tot may
<br />be heavily used by office employees and visitors in ~e dayrSme,
<br />while the restaurant patrons may park in the lot after most
<br />weekday office users have left and on weekends. If the restaurant
<br />is open during the day, it may benefit from lunch-dine use by
<br />office employees while generating little add}fional daytime
<br />parking demand. In addition to efficient sharing of parking
<br />spaces and reduced development costs, transportation system
<br />benefits may resu[t from a reduction in the number ofo~ce
<br />employees driving off-site for lunch.
<br />
<br />~i~{NNEAPOLIS ZONING CODE
<br />~Omputation. The number of shared spaces for two (2)or more
<br />~{~5~}~s'tinguishabie land uses sh~l be determined by me following
<br />
<br /> ~ly ~e min~um paring required for eac~ in~vidu~
<br /> =e, = sci for~ in Table 541-l, Specific Off-Street Paring
<br /> Provisions, by ~e appropriate percentage indicated in
<br /> 541-2, Shared Parking C~c~afions, for =ch of ~e sk (6)
<br /> &signared time. periods:
<br /> Add the resulting sins for each of ~e sN (6) columns.
<br /> The minimum paring requirement sh~l be the hi~=t sum
<br /> among ~e six (6) columns res~ting from the above c~c~a-
<br /> tions.
<br />:5==~t~ Select ~e rime period wt~ the highest tor~.oarhng renuire-
<br /> ment and use ~at tor~ = rte st=ed parhng requirement.
<br />.~}~er uses, If one (1) or ~l of me l=d =es proposing to m~e
<br />· ~}5:?i~fi ofsh~ed p~ldng faci[kies do not conform to the general'land
<br />;~;:'~ cl~sificarions in Table 54 i-2. Shared Paring C~cutarions,
<br />~7,7~ determined by the zomng administrator, then the apphcant sh~l
<br />'.}(~':i~bmit sufficient data co indicate the princip~ operating hours
<br /> us~. B~ed upon this information, tM zoning administrator
<br />55~ ~:~s~atl determine the appropriate shared paring requirement,
<br />
<br />=~35~7~ocess. An application for shared paring sh~l be submitted, on
<br /> ' 'aT6rm aPproved by =he zoning administrator, = specified in Chap-
<br /> 525, administration and Enforcement.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|