|
Transit stops are one of the off-street parking reduction
<br /> alternatives allowed in the Pittsburgh zoning code:
<br /> Transit Stops
<br />
<br /> The Zoning Board of'Adjustment shall be authorized, in
<br /> accordance with the Special Exception provisions of Sec. 922.07, to
<br /> permit the incorporation of wansit stops as a means of satisfying the
<br /> otherwise applicable off-street parking standards, provided the
<br /> following conditions are met:
<br />
<br /> 1. The transit stop sha(t be designed to be a station or waiting area
<br /> for transit riders, dearly identified as such, and open to the
<br /> public at large;
<br /> 2. The transit stop shall be designed as an integral parr of the
<br /> development project, with direct access to the station or waiting
<br /> area from the development site;
<br />
<br /> 3. The transit waiting area or platform shill be designed to
<br /> accommodate pazsengers in a covered waiting area, with searing
<br /> for a minimum of 20 persons, shall include internal lighting, and
<br /> shall include other features which encourage dae use o£ the
<br /> facility, such as temperature control within the waiting area or
<br /> the inclusion of food vendors;
<br /> 4. The maximum reduction in the number of parking spaces shall
<br /> be no more than 20 percent of the total required spaces;
<br />
<br /> -5. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall request a report and
<br /> recommendation from the Planning Director on the planning
<br /> aspects, and the potential impacts of the proposed reduction in
<br /> parking through the provision ufa transit facility;
<br /> 6~ The rransk stop shall be maintained by the developer for the life
<br /> o£ the development project.
<br />
<br />SUMMARY
<br />A community's parking policies and regulations have a great deal
<br />ofint:tuence on how that community will evolve over rime. This
<br />chapter has covered the requirements and rationale re{sled to
<br />off-street parking in a sample, of communities varying in size
<br />and regional location. The body of this P~%q Report presents the
<br />requirements of many communities that have dealt with the
<br />complex issues oudined above. The off-street parking puzzle
<br />includes a wide range of additional pieces not addressed in this
<br />chapter, including fees in-lieu of parking, parking cash-out
<br />policies, federal policies on off-streeT parking, size and stall
<br />dimensions, and adaptive reuse of that do not conform with
<br />current parking requirements. The relationship between land
<br />use and wansportarion is becoming increasingly complicated ar
<br />the city, regional, and. national levels with many communities
<br />facing highland values, the high cost of transportation
<br />infrastructure, and the heavy use o£such infrastructure. Those
<br />communities that look for innovative ways to manage off-street
<br />parking--a key link between land use and transportation--may
<br />be best prepared to .tackle these problems.
<br />
<br />NEWS BRIEFS
<br />
<br />Arizona Court Strikes Down Consent Law
<br />Is a statutory provision' requiring county officials to obtain the
<br />consent of the property owner before downzoning the property
<br />constitutional? That's the question the Arizona Court of
<br />Appeals was asked this fall. They responded with a resounding.
<br />"no" in an opinion issued on'November 19, 2002, in.Eramett
<br />McZoufhlin Realty v. Pima. County.
<br /> In April 2000, the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved
<br />a county-initiated r~oning of McLoughlin's property ~om CB-1
<br />(permitting business uses) ro SR and CR-2 (permitting only
<br />residential uses). The county never sought the property owner's
<br />
<br />permission. McLoughlln cried "foul play," pointing to r~e provision
<br />passed by the Arizona Legislature two years earlier:.
<br />
<br /> The legislature finds that a rezoning of land chat changes the zoning
<br /> classification of the land or char restricts the use or reduces the value
<br /> of the land is a matter of statewide concern and such a change in
<br /> znning char is initiated by the governing body. or.zoning body shall
<br /> not be made without the express written consent of the property
<br /> owner. The county shall not adopt any' change in a zoning
<br /> d~ssiticadon ro circumvent the purpose of this subsection; [Ariz.
<br /> Rev. Star. ~ 11-829(F), now (G)]
<br />
<br /> FI_PA and the Arizona APA Chapter filed an amicus brief in
<br />support of Pima County, arguing that this "consent· provision"
<br />undermines two bedrock'principles of land-use law--that
<br />zoning regulations must be uniform throughout each zoning
<br />district and zoning regulations must be consistent with the
<br />community's adopted comprehensive plan. [ir a property owner
<br />can block the county's rezoning actions solely for his or her self-
<br />interest, then the community's comprehensive plan is thwarted
<br />and the county has no recourse. The court agreed and found the
<br />provision an unconstitutional delegation of legislative anrhoriry.
<br />"Only with the authority to rezone property can a county
<br />effectively make the extensive planning determinations,required
<br />of ir, such as is contemplated by the Urban Planning-growing
<br />Smarter Act," the court said.
<br /> Attorneys Douglas A. Jorden and Michele A~ Hentrich of
<br />Jorden, Bischoff, McGuire & Rose, PLC in Scotrsdale, Arizona;
<br />authored the brief,' which can be viewed at www. planning.org/
<br />amicusbriefs. Lora Lucern
<br />
<br />Lora A. Lucern, alc~; is a planner and land-use attorney in iVew ~!derico.
<br />
<br />Smart Growth at the FrOntier: Strategies
<br />and Resources for Rural' Communities
<br />Bar~ra ~e&. N~r~hea~;-Midwesc ;mdm~e, 2~ ~ D Sc. $~,
<br />Washington, D C 20003. 80 ff. 2002.'Available online ar
<br />www. ne-mw, org/RuralSmarrGrowrh.{~df.
<br /> Zoning is an integral element of the bundle of strategies the
<br />report describes, all aimed at helping rural communities deal
<br />with controlling sprawl and reviving local economies. Badly
<br />planned or unplanned development can mar the rural landscape
<br />in ways that harm economic growth. Good zoning strategies can
<br />advance farmland preservation, .affordable housing, and.resource
<br />conservation. The numerous case studies highlight resources
<br />that rural communities can. tap to achieve these-goals.
<br />
<br />Zomng New~ is a monthly, new*letter published by the American Planning Assoc./at/an;
<br />Subscriptions are available for $60 (U.S.) and $82 (foreign}; Wi Paul Farmer, ^tce, E×ecudv~
<br />Director: William R, Klein, ^mpc Director of P, ezeatch,
<br />
<br />Zoning Ntwt i$ produced at APA. Jim Schwab, att:r}, and Michael Davi&on; Edltom 8~.rry Bain,
<br />amy,, Fay Dnlnick, Jo$h'Edwards~ San jay Jeer, a~cr', Megart Lewis, ^Ice, Mar'Fa Morris, alCis.
<br />Robcrto Rcquejo, Lynn Russ, Reporters; Shcrric Matthews, Assistant Editor: l.ha Barton,
<br />Ut. sign and Production,
<br />Copyright ©2003 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 16001
<br />Chicago, iL 60603. The American Planning Association also ha: office: at 1776 Mazsachuse~ts
<br />Ave,, N,W., Washington, DC 20036; x~,~w,planning.org
<br />All righu reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or udlized in any form or by any
<br />me=ns, electronic ur mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information :torage
<br />and rctricval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber ~
<br />and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|