06-16-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

6 more miles annually. These figures show that Americans have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for mobility. Of course, vehicles require a place to be stored at the end of each trip. A number of development projects dedicate as much or more land area to parking area than to build- ing area. It’s important to recognize that there are a variety of stakeholders in de- cisions about off-street parking requirements (e.g., developers, business owners and their employees and patrons, community residents, and the general public, all of whom have an interest in mobility and in an attractive physical environment where automobile traffic is not overwhelming and the air is clean to breathe). The amount of parking provided for the range of land uses in a community is an important link between land use, transpor- tation, design, and environmental quality. Not only is thought given to matching the amount of off-street parking required by municipal zoning codes to the actual parking demand, but planners and policy makers in- creasingly pay attention to the ways in which an excess supply of free or inexpensive parking influences demand and creates externalities. Some stud- ies (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 1992; Willson 1992; Willson 1995) indicate that many communities have created parking standards that re- quire developments to build parking spaces far in excess of demand, even given the continuing growth of automobile ownership and use. For example, a Seattle study, 1991 Parking Utilization Study, found that the average park- ing supply exceeded average demand by 30 percent at 36 office and indus- trial sites located in noncentral business district suburban locations in the Seattle area. Business owners and land developers must balance the expense of pro- viding off-street parking with their desire to ensure that patrons and em- ployees have easy vehicular access to the site. The amount of parking pro- vided varies widely from one development to the next, even among developments sharing similar characteristics. While some choose to mini- mize the supply of off-street parking, others oversupply parking to the ex- tent that many spaces are rarely used. Some business owners consider vis- ible excess parking a necessary perk for employees and a welcome mat that makes potential patrons aware that there is no shortage of parking serving the business. In terms of the larger picture, there has been an increasing body of literature during the past decade that examines the relationship between the built environment and transportation choices. The landmark LUTRAQ (Making the Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Con- nection) demonstration project (1000 Friends of Oregon 1997) is one ex- ample. The project analyzed the differences between conventional sub- urban development and transit-oriented development scenarios in the western portion of the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. The study found that the LUTRAQ scenario, based on transit-oriented development, could result in a variety of transportation demand benefits, including a 4 percent reduction in auto ownership rates and fewer vehicle trips per household each day. Much recent parking literature argues that excessive parking supply dis- courages alternative modes of transportation, reduces density, increases the cost of development, creates an uninviting built environment, and degrades the natural environment (e.g., by increasing polluted stormwater runoff into area water bodies, increasing air pollution by inducing automobile travel, and contributing to urban heat islands). While benefits may accrue from minimizing the amount of off-street parking, downsizing minimum parking requirements may be a tricky proposition in many communities due to the feared impact on other community objectives. 123