|
Maximum Parking Standards
<br /> Some communities, in addition to requiring a minimum
<br /> amount of off-street parking, limit the amount of parking that
<br /> may be provided for individual uses. Although this practice has
<br /> become more widespread during the past decade, maximum
<br /> standards are not currently Found in. most zoning codes.
<br /> Communities that incorporate maximum standards range in
<br /> size and character. They include San Antonio, Tm, cas; Jefferson
<br /> County (Louisville), Kentucky; Gresham, Oregon; Seattle; and
<br /> San Francisco. And some cities, like those mentioned 'in the
<br /> Following paragraphs, do not establish set standards. Rather,
<br /> they create formulas for determining maximums.
<br /> Combined with parking minimums, maximum standards create
<br /> a parking range. Maximum standards generally come in three
<br /> forms. Some communities, as with typical minimum requirements,
<br /> set a ratio per number of square Feet of building area. Pittsburgh,
<br /> for example, sets a maximum offistreet parking rado of one space
<br /> per 175'square Feet of retail sales and services, while the city's
<br /> minimum requirement for such.uses is one. space per 500-square
<br /> Feet beyond dar first 2,400 square feet. (No parking is required For
<br /> the first 2,400 square feet.) Thu~, For a new 5,000-square-foot retail
<br /> building in Pittsburgh, five off-su'eer parking spaces are' required
<br /> and no more than 29 could be provided a fairly wide range.
<br /> In Redmond, Washington, the Neighborhood, Retail and
<br /> General commercial zones are allowe~l a maximum of five spaces
<br /> per 1,000 square feet of floor area for most uses and a minimum
<br /> of four per 1,000 square Feet. In a 5,000-square-foot building,
<br /> 20 spaces would be required and the cap would be 25.
<br /> Redmond is an example ora suburban community r. hat has
<br /> used maximum requirements effectively.
<br /> A second method for regulating the maximum number of
<br /> spaces is to base the maximum'on the minimum. For example,
<br /> the Draft Unified Development Ordinance in Helena,
<br /> Montana, requires the following:
<br />
<br /> Maximum Number of Parklng Spaces Required.
<br /> The maximum number o£o~-street parking spaces for any building
<br /> or use shall not exceed thc amount determined a~ follows:
<br />
<br /> 1. Parking lots of more than twenty and less than rift-y-one spaces.
<br /> Parking. lots may nor have more than one hundred twenty
<br /> percent (120%) of the number of spaces idendlied in Table 15-
<br /> C, not including accessible spaces, unless a minimum of twenty
<br /> percent (20%) of the parking area is landscaped in accordance
<br /> with the standards of this chapter.
<br />
<br /> 2. Parking lots of flfty-one spaces or more. No more than one
<br /> hundred ten percent (I 10%) of the number of spaces required as
<br /> identified in Table l 5-C of this chapter, not including accessible
<br /> spaces, are permitted.
<br />
<br /> Based on Helena's minimum parking requirement for retail
<br />uses of 4.1 spaces per L000 square. Feet of gross floor area, a
<br />5,000-square-Foot retail store would b~ required to. provide 21
<br />spaces and could' provide no more .than 25 spaces (unless 20
<br />percent of the parking lot is landScaped)--a very narrow range.
<br />(Note that maximum standards of 125 or. 150 percent of the
<br />minimum are more prevalent and provide a somewhat wider
<br />range.) Generally, communities with minimum parking
<br />requirements that are set particularly low (i.e., below typical
<br />demand) might consider higher maximum standards (e.g., 150
<br />or 200 percent of the minimum) when using this method.
<br /> A third method is a limit on the overall number of parking.
<br />spaces in a particular geographic area. Cambridge,
<br />Massachusetts, uses parking maximums as parr of a
<br />comprehensive set of strategies to reduce automobile
<br />dependence. The Cambridge zoning ordinance, for example,
<br />
<br /> states that "the total number of parking spaces serving non-
<br /> residential u~es in the North POint Residence District shall not
<br /> exceed 2,500 spaces, allocated to each lot in the district at a rate
<br /> of 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of lot area." Cambridge also
<br /> uses the more pOpular approach of strong parking maximums
<br /> for many individual land uses, .
<br />
<br /> DowntOwn Parking standards
<br /> In recent years, a number of'communities, without a traditional
<br /> downtown have attempted. to create such a place. Parking in
<br /> downtown areas is comple.x and subject to a variety of
<br /> competing interests. For example, the needs of bUSinesses that
<br /> rely on the availability of short-term parking are sometimes
<br /> affected by commuters who occupy parking spaces, from 8:00
<br /> a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Constantly adding to the dOwnr°wn parking
<br /> supply shoUld not,be the sole solution to solving real or
<br /> perceived downtown parking "problems." Doing so, in. fact, is
<br /> likely to work against goals aimed ar improving air quality,
<br /> reducing traffic (or ar least reducing the rate of increase of traffic
<br /> congestion), and increasing transit use. When parking demand
<br /> in a downtown area increases substanr/ally~ there are only a
<br /> limited number of ways ro increase the rraffc carrying capacity '
<br /> of doWntown streets as well, some of which, such as elimination
<br /> of on-street parking, are not necessarily desirable.
<br /> In Downtown Parking Made Easy, Mary Bart notes that Eno
<br /> Foundation researcher Herr Levinson suggests'that a review of
<br /> downtown parking strategies should begin with consideration of
<br /> the following points:
<br /> · What are the community development, environmental, and
<br /> transportation goals for downtown and the surrounding
<br /> areas?
<br /> · What basic poli~ies Underline Formation of plans and. options?
<br /> · Which.range of parking options are meaningful in retafion
<br /> to: existing parking facilities and street systems; downtown
<br /> development partems and.intensities; 6rigins, destinations
<br /> and approach routes of parkers; transit service capabilities;
<br /> and' environmental and energy constraints? . '
<br />· How can parking serve az a catalyst For desired development?
<br />· Should parking be provided For all who want to drive
<br /> downtown, or should it be rationed in Some specific manner?
<br />· What balance should be achieved between parking located
<br /> on the outskirr~ of downtown and-parking located along
<br /> express transit stops in oudying areas?
<br />· What are .the effects ofparkingon r-he location and design of
<br /> public transport routes, stations, and terminals?
<br />
<br />Transit· AlloWances
<br />Offering.off-street parking reductions based on proximity to
<br />public transportation is an increasingly popular, approach. TheSe
<br />reductions may serve m encourage transit ridership.:and, more
<br />generally, development in corridors or nodes thar'are well served
<br />by bus or rail. (Reduced' Parking requirements related' to
<br />superior transit access are inherent in some of the other code,
<br />provisions discussed in thik chapter, such as reduced parking
<br />requirements in d'ownroWn areasi)
<br /> Minneapolis allows a 10 percent parking reduction for
<br />multifamily residential dwellings-'.'if the proposed use is.located
<br />within'300 feet of a transit stop with-midday service headways
<br />of 30 minutes or less in each direction." For all other uses, "the
<br />minimum parking-requirement may be reduced 10 percent if
<br />the use provides an adequate sheltered transit stop within the
<br />development, as. determined by the city engineer."
<br />
<br /> 3
<br />
<br />
<br />
|