|
13
<br />though this space provides a safety valve to prevent an eventual shortage
<br />of parking, such an approach may diminish the benefits associated with
<br />the shared parking arrangement by effectively limiting the development
<br />potential of the site.
<br />If the uses that share parking are not located on the same parcel, the
<br />zoning ordinance should contain provisions governing off-site parking (e.g.,
<br />limitations on the distance between a use and its off-site parking). The dis-
<br />tance that off-site parking may be from the use or uses served may vary
<br />depending on the type of use or destination in question, pedestrian infra-
<br />structure, and the regional climate.
<br />Maximum Parking Standards
<br />Some communities, in addition to requiring a minimum amount of off-
<br />street parking, limit the amount of parking that may be provided for
<br />individual uses. Although this practice has become more widespread
<br />during the past decade, maximum standards are not currently found in
<br />most zoning codes. Communities that incorporate maximum standards
<br />range in size and character. They include San Antonio, Texas; Jefferson
<br />County (Louisville), Kentucky; Gresham, Oregon; Seattle, Washington;
<br />and San Francisco, California. And some cities, like those mentioned in
<br />the following paragraphs, do not establish set standards. Rather, they
<br />create formulas for determining maximums.
<br />Parking maximums have been particularly prevalent in the North-
<br />west due in part to state and regional goals or mandates. If the number
<br />of communities using such codes is any indication, however, more plan-
<br />ners and policy makers nationwide believe that maximum standards
<br />are as important as minimum standards—if not more so. Shoup (1999b),
<br />although not espousing maximum parking standards, suspects that plan-
<br />ners will some day look back and see minimum parking requirements
<br />as a terrible mistake. He believes minimum requirements are “observe,
<br />ambiguous, and cumbersome,” and impede progress toward important
<br />social, economic, and environmental goals. Parking maximums have
<br />been used most extensively in downtown areas, but they also can be an
<br />effective tool for communities interested in managing stormwater, in-
<br />creasing densities, and meeting transportation demand management ob-
<br />jectives throughout the community.
<br />Combined with parking minimums, maximum standards create a
<br />parking range. Maximum standards generally come in three forms. Some
<br />communities, as with typical minimum requirements, set a ratio per
<br />number of square feet of building area. Pittsburgh, for example, sets a
<br />maximum off-street parking ratio of one space per 175 square feet of
<br />retail sales and services, while the city’s minimum requirement for such
<br />uses is one space per 500 square feet beyond the first 2,400 square feet.
<br />(No parking is required for the first 2,400 square feet.) Thus, for a new
<br />5,000-square-foot retail building in Pittsburgh, five off-street parking
<br />spaces are required and no more than 29 could be provided—a fairly
<br />wide range.
<br />In Redmond, Washington, the Neighborhood, Retail and General com-
<br />mercial zones are allowed a maximum of five spaces per 1,000 square
<br />feet of floor area for most uses and a minimum of four per 1,000 square
<br />feet. In a 5,000-square-foot building, 20 spaces would be required and
<br />the cap would be 25. Redmond is an example of a suburban community
<br />that has used maximum requirements effectively.
<br />A second method for regulating the maximum number of spaces is to
<br />base the maximum on the minimum. For example, the Draft Unified
<br />Development Ordinance in Helena, Montana, requires the following:
<br />130
|