Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: On-Street Parking

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,019

    On-Street Parking

    We have a proposal to construct a new building on an existing lot. The builder has floated the idea of creating parking stalls along the street instead of creating a parking lot on site. This is a low-traffic sidestreet that is substandard (no curb or storm sewer). There is already a continuous curb cut across the street, a leftover from the bad planning days of the 1970's.

    This appears to me to be a good idea. The parking would be perpendicular to the street, there would be negligible traffic impacts, and as curb, storm sewer, and sidewalks would be installed, the street would actually be improved. Hopefully, the owner across the street might make a similar improvement. Here are the problems:

    The parking stalls would not be entirely in the ROW, but would cross the lot line. The developer would prefer that the stalls be private, but we can't agree to allowing exclusive use of the ROW by a private party. Vacating the street is not an option. If the lot line were moved to put the stalls entirely in the ROW, the lot would not conform to zoning, and the setbacks would mandate a smaller building (the problem that on-street parking is meant to correct). There is also a question of maintenance, where our DPW would prefer that plowing and other maintenance be performed by the building owner.

    My questions:
    1. Does anybody have thoughts on how to rectify the lot line issue? (or does anyone have examples of agreements to permit the shared public/private use of the ROW for parking?)
    2. Does anybody have examples of maintenance agreements for parking lots such as this?

  2. #2
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    What about moving the lot line out into the ROW?

    Also, I remember a friend from Boston talking about these things. Appearently they're removing them there because they're quite dangerous, moreso than parallel parking. That's probably not a problem on a small street as long as traffic speeds are slow enough though.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,019
    Originally posted by jordanb
    What about moving the lot line out into the ROW?
    The city will want to maintain the ROW in case it ever decides to widen or reconstruct the street, and there are existing underground utilities in that part of the ROW.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    I'm guessing that he needs to do 90 degree parking to meet parking reqs?

    90 degree parking sucks man. Like jordan said, pretty dangerous along a street, no matter how little the volume. 45 degree is better if you aren't going to do parallel parking.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Budgie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Sans Souci
    Posts
    5,265
    Originally posted by Mike D.
    I'm guessing that he needs to do 90 degree parking to meet parking reqs?

    90 degree parking sucks man. Like jordan said, pretty dangerous along a street, no matter how little the volume. 45 degree is better if you aren't going to do parallel parking.
    I agree go with 45 degree. ____\_\_\_\_\______

    Is there alley access? If so, go with parrallel on the street and 45 degree on-site with access of the alley.

    You probably have an unnecessary front setback, otherwise you would have on-site parking at the rear of the lot with a build-to line on the front.

  6. #6
    maudit anglais
    Registered
    May 1997
    Location
    Odd-a-wah
    Posts
    6,586
    I'll add my two cents for angled over stall parking. But, IMHO, using the public ROW to satisfy parking requirements for a private development is a no-no. Sooner or later, the City will end up on the hook to maintain these spaces.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,019
    Originally posted by Tranplanner
    I'll add my two cents for angled over stall parking. But, IMHO, using the public ROW to satisfy parking requirements for a private development is a no-no. Sooner or later, the City will end up on the hook to maintain these spaces.
    Perpendicular parking is no problem here. We are talking about a street with a lower traffic volume than many parking lots. While there is no alley, they are installing some parking at the back of the building. This will connect to the next building, providing them ingress/egress to the side street as well - a major improvement.

    I agree with your comment that this will eventually become city parking. when we re-wrote the ordinance I argued against having a large setback requirement (30') in most cases, but particularly in an older, established part of the community. Had we put in a mechanism to reduce it to, say 15 feet, we could expand the ROW, put in the parking all on public ROW, and eliminate the problem.

  8. #8
    Member Mary's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    outerspace
    Posts
    127
    I know this is a bad question but does your ordiance even allow on street parking? I know I'm dealling with older sections of town with an ordiance that doesn't allow it and running into a few problems myself.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,019
    Originally posted by Mary
    I know this is a bad question but does your ordiance even allow on street parking? I know I'm dealling with older sections of town with an ordiance that doesn't allow it and running into a few problems myself.
    Our ordinance allows parking on a street-by-street, block-by-block basis. It has to be one of the longest and most frequently amended ordinances on the book. In new subdivisions, we have different road width requirements based on whether no parking will be allowed, parking will be allowed on one side, or parking will be allowed on both sides of the street. Of course, thee are all meant for parallel parking.

    Ironically, while many planners are looking for ways to reduce street widths and right-of-way, here we have a case of a 50-foot ROW where the standard 66-foot ROW would have accomodated both the street and the perpendicular parking.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian donk's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2001
    Location
    skating on thin ice
    Posts
    6,958
    mary asked I know this is a bad question but does your ordiance even allow on street parking?
    We have two historic downtown, both developed with 100% lot coverage and well before cars where even a consideration.

    We allow for no parking to be provided on site for new developments, as long as there is no net gain of parking required.(ie tear a building down, new building can only generate the same parking requirements as the old building) If there is an increase in required parking we have the option to collect money for the "parking lot development fund". The City has been working on developing off street parking in these areas and needs the $$$ to finish it up/pay for their investment.
    Too lazy to beat myself up for being to lazy to beat myself up for being too lazy to... well you get the point....

  11. #11
    Our ordinance does not allow an owner to use on-street parking to reduce his off-street parking requirement. We strongly uphold this because it is a surefire way to get the next owner saying "But you did it for him ...."

    That being said, our BZA can waive the off-street parking if 51% of the uses in the block do not meet the requirement, e.g. our downtown district.

    Good Luck!
    Je suis Charlie

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 4
    Last post: 09 Nov 2012, 2:51 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last post: 20 Sep 2012, 10:01 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last post: 01 Nov 2010, 2:55 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last post: 12 Sep 2005, 2:05 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last post: 12 May 2005, 3:16 PM