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

Home Browse Search

21 regional transportation infrastructure. Such ordinances may also cover bi- cycle parking, preferential carpool parking, pricing incentives for parking, employer subsidies of employee transit passes, and on-site access for em- ployees to transit passes and schedules. For a thorough examination of TDM in theory and practice, see PAS Report Number 477, Transportation Demand Management. Residential Parking Requirements The amount of parking required for residential uses is, almost without ex- ception, expressed as a ratio related to the number of dwelling units. Re- quirements typically range from one to two required spaces per unit. Some communities make distinctions based on whether the dwelling is in a multi- or single-family building. Others make further distinctions based on the number of bedrooms in multifamily units, the location of the units in the community, or whether the units serve senior, low-income, or other special populations that are less likely to own automobiles. In Jefferson County, Kentucky, for example, single-family dwellings and duplexes must pro- vide one parking space per dwelling unit. While multifamily dwellings located in the Traditional Neighborhood and Traditional Marketplace Cor- ridor Form Districts must also provide one space per dwelling unit, multi- family dwellings elsewhere must provide 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Senior citizen or retirement facilities have a lower requirement of one space for every two dwelling units and one space for every two employees “on maximum shift.” As regards residential parking requirements overall, Litman (1999) notes that communities should be mindful of the impact stan- dards may have on housing affordability; specifically, he says ‘planners can play a role in encouraging developers to ‘unbundle’ the cost of hous- ing from the cost of parking sot hat those who use residential parking spaces are the people who pay for it.” A Note about Variances A majority of communities allow parking reductions through a variance process. Although there are advantages to examining parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, doing so may result in inconsistency from one project to the next. And for communities that act “by the book” on vari- ances, reducing parking requirements may be a stretch given that many codes, based on state enabling legislation, require that variances must be based on factors unique to the characteristics of a particular parcel, rather than a blanket juridictional charge. SUMMARY A community’s parking policies and regulations have a great deal of influ- ence on how that community will evolve over time. This chapter has cov- ered the requirements and rationale related to off-street parking in a sample of communities varying in size and regional location. The body of this PAS Report presents the requirements of many communities that have dealt with the complex issues outlined above. The off-street parking puzzle in- cludes a wide range of additional pieces not addressed in this chapter, in- cluding fees in lieu of parking (Shoup 1999a), parking cash-out policies (Kodama et al. 1996), federal policies on off-street parking (FTA 2002), size and stall dimensions (NPA 1992), and adaptive reuse of that do not con- form with current parking requirements (Beaumont 1993). The relation- ship between land use and transportation is becoming increasingly com- plicated at the city, regional, and national levels with many communities facing high land values, the high cost of transportation infrastructure, and the heavy use of such infrastructure. Those communities that look for in- 138