Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 27 of 27

Thread: The 100 year parking event: the root of excessive parking standards

  1. #26
    Cyburbian UrbaneSprawler's avatar
    Nov 2009
    Quote Originally posted by mendelman View post
    An interesting experiment would be to create a "no parking requirement" area and see what happens.
    We actually have that experiment going. As previously mentioned we have parking maximums for non-residential as the standard. In addition, an overlay district was adopted in anticipation of it being served by a bus rapid transit system whereupon within this district, no parking is required. This includes commercial and residential. It's too new to say what happens on the operations and enforcement side as none of the approved projects have been built under this and in operation.

    That said, the planning board was really stuck on this concept during deliberation when a student housing project near the university was proposed (one of the first projects under the overlay district) that did not meet our minimum parking requirement for this residential use had it been outside of the overlay district. Nearby residents were hammering the board and staff at the hearing for the amount of parking being provided not being sufficient in their view. In the end the project was passed because the code specified no parking required within the overlay district with staff using this as the response to the board and the public; the board's hands were tied. There's also the added bonus in testimony from staff that a parking study is currently being done to look into these issues (it might be smoother if the parking study were completed first, then use the information to justify the overlay district, but I suppose opinions vary.)

    Just yesterday we were looking at a concept plan that expands an existing apartment complex (adding more units into existing parking spaces). It became a circular conversation for staff around the table:

    "The project's expansion would have required a total of 97 spaces. Only 63 were provided."
    "But isn't it in the overlay district and no parking spaces are required?"
    "Yes, but the project's expansion would have required a total of 97 spaces. Only 63 were provided."

    Good times.

  2. #27
    Oct 2006
    Aliquippa Pa
    If you aren't smart enough to know where to store snow and where to drive, you shouldn't be driving large mechanical equipment anyway. If you are advocating it to keep costs down for plowing, you shouldn't be calculating costs. [/grrrrr]
    Having plowed snow in commercial lots for 19 years, I can tell you that dealing with anything other than wide open space is a headache. Plows are at their most efficient in making long, uninterupted runs. Plowing around landscaping features takes time, and as we all know, time is money. The plowing contractor that fails to account for that additonal time in his bid is the one who shouldn't be calculating costs. (Although, there is a practical limit in how far to push snow. Islands in parking lots often provide a good reason to stop there and stack snow, rather than taking it all the way to the edge of the lot.)
    Proudly spending today building the dilapidated housing stock of the 22nd century.

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 5
    Last post: 01 Nov 2010, 1:55 PM
  2. Parking Restaurant parking standards
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 13
    Last post: 07 Aug 2009, 12:41 PM
  3. Parking Parking lot maintenance standards
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 29 Jun 2009, 3:36 PM
  4. Parking Parking standards
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 11 Jul 2007, 10:41 PM
  5. Parking standards for on-street parking
    Transportation Planning
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 24 May 2005, 8:58 PM