Parking Maximums
Brandon Hanson (author), Jonathan Rosenbloom & Christopher Duerksen (editors)INTRODUCTION
Off-street parking maximum standards in zoning ordinances limit the construction of parking lots that are larger than necessary. Local governments across the U.S. have routinely set parking minimums in their land development regulations for various types of uses.[1] The purpose of parking minimums is to insure that there are sufficient off-street parking spaces for each development based, typically, on the building use and size.[2] Increasingly, local governments recognize the need to limit parking for a variety of reasons and therefore establish parking maximums in their regulations, establishing an upper bound for the number of spaces allowed for a specific use, thus controlling the amount of land and impervious surface associated with parking.[3] Some jurisdictions permit developments to exceed maximums upon the performance of certain criteria, such as increasing permeable surfaces.
EFFECTS
While off-street parking is an aspect of most developments, impervious parking lots can have a number of detrimental effects. First, they prevent groundwater infiltration and increase storm water run-off.[4] Such run-off can increase downstream erosion and flooding as well as polluting rivers and lakes. Additionally, impervious parking lots may impose significant costs and burdens on municipal stormwater systems. They may also increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions where stormwater must be treated by a local utilities to remove pollutants to meet federal and state standards.[5] Second, large parking lots can reduce densities and spread out development over a larger area, thereby hindering the use of less GHG-intensive modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, or public transit.[6] Third, cheap and convenient off-street parking promotes increased use of vehicles[7] that can lead to traffic congestion, air pollution, and poor public health.[8] Traffic congestion in turn results in calls for wider streets, bigger intersections, and, ironically, even higher parking requirements.[9] Finally, large parking lots with their expansive pavement can exacerbate the urban heat island effect, making local communities hotter and increasing demand on energy.
Importantly, parking maximums may also result in less excessively large and wasteful parking lots. When those spots are under-utilized, consumers, developers, and local governments are paying unnecessary charges.[10] Parking maximum standards can reduce the physical size of lots thereby promoting compact developments while reducing stormwater run-off and GHG emissions .[11] While minimum parking requirements have produced no single disaster, “evidence of their harm confronts us everywhere–traffic congestion, air pollution, energy imports, the orientation of the built environment around the automobile, perhaps even global climate change. Although not their sole cause, minimum parking requirements magnify all these problems.”[12]
EXAMPLES
Portland, OR
Portland enacted a parking maximum ordinance by creating multiple formulas for different use categories.[13] Each use category is set out in a table accompanied by a ratio used to determine the parking minimum as well as the parking maximum.[14] Commercial spaces are usually subject to a cap based on their floor area.[15] For example, a general office category is allowed one parking space per 294 square feet of office space, maximum.[16] Thus, using the ratio described above, a project with a proposed office space of 5,000 square feet would result in ten parking slots as a maximum (5,000 / 294 = 17.01). In some cases, Portland reduces its minimum and maximum lot sizes if the development is located close to a transit system.[17]
To view the provision see Portland, OR, City Code § 33.266.115 (2018).
Hartford, CT
Hartford manages parking lot sizes by setting out parking maximums though a table of uses classifications.[18] The code sets out specific maximum numbers of parking spaces for all of its allowed use classifications.[19] Developers must determine which use category a development falls into. For example, a restaurant would qualify as a place of eating.[20] This category allows a maximum of three parking spaces for every five people of the restaurant’s maximum capacity.[21] If the restaurant had a maximum of 100 customers, then the maximum parking spaces would be 60 parking spaces. This helps Hartford control the amount traffic and vehicle use in and out of the developments in question. Hartford has become one of the first cities in the country to eliminate minimum vehicular parking requirements. Instead, Hartford imposes minimum bicycle parking requirements. Together with the parking maximums, Hartford is repositioning itself for a future with less dependence on the automobile.
To view the provision see Hartford, CT, Zoning Regulations § 7.2.2 (B) (2018).
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
Charlotte, NC, Code of Ordinances, Zoning, § 9.1208 (6) (2018) (sets parking minimums and maximums in transit-oriented districts only).
Flagstaff, AZ, Zoning Code § 10-50.80.040 (C) (1) (2018) (sets a maximum amount of parking at five percent higher than the minimum).
Vancouver, Canada, Parking Bylaws § 4 (2019) (implements conventional parking maximums as wells as a total parking cap in the downtown area).
Denver, CO, Municipal Code § 30-50 (2018) (requires developer to ask special permission to include parking above the parking minimum).
New Haven, CT, Zoning Ordinances § 45 (8) (D) (2018) (provides for a parking maximum in mixed-use districts of three spaces per 1,000 square feet).
Burlington, MA, Zoning Bylaw §§ 7.2.4, 7.2.5 (2015) (sets both parking minimums and maximums for various types of developments).
Knoxville, TN, Zoning Regulations Art. 5 § 7 (D) (2018) (creates parking minimums and maximums with exceptions from the department of engineering).
New York, NY, Zoning Resolution Art. 2 Ch. 5 (2018) (creates parking maximums, no minimum requirements for specific buildings).
CITATIONS
[1] See, e.g., Flagstaff, AZ, Zoning Code § 10-50.80.040; Omaha, NE, Code of Ordinances § 55-734; Yakima, WA, Code of Ordinances Table 6-1; Coppell, TX, Code of Ordinances § 12-31-6; Richard W. Willson, Parking Reform Made Easy, 11-12 (2013).
[2] Willson, supra note 1, at 20-21 (2013); Christopher McCahill & Norman Garrick, Parking: Issues and Policies, Parking Supply and Urban Impacts, 35-37 (Stephen Ison & Corinne Mulley ed., 2014).
[3] Willson, supra note 1, at 34-36; Portland, OR, City Code § 33.266.115; Harford, CT, Zoning Regulations Fig. 7.2-A; Burlington, MA, Zoning Bylaws §§ 7.2.4, 7.2.5.
[4] Andrew Kavarvonen, Politics of Urban Runoff: Nature, Technology and the Sustainable City, 10-11 (2011); Benjamin O. Brattebo & Derek B. Booth, Long-term Stormwater Quantity and Quality Performance of Permeable Pavement Systems, 37 Water Research 4369, 4369 (2003).
[5] Kavarvonen, supra note 4, at 13-14.
[6] McCahill & Garrick, supra note 2, at 40-41.
[7] Greg Marsden, Parking: Issues and Polices, Parking Policy 17-18 (Stephen Ison & Corinne Mulley ed., 2014).
[8] Id. at 17-18; Willson, supra note 1, at 24-29; Michael Lewyn, Sprawl in Canada and the United States, The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Winter 2012).
[9] Donald C. Shoup, The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements, Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 33 (1999).
[10] Id. at 1.
[11] Marsden, supra note 7, at 17-18.
[12] Shoup, supra note 9.
[13] Portland, OR, City Code § 33.266.115.
[14] Id. at Table 266-2
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at § 33.266.115 (B) (1) (b).
[18] Harford, CT, Zoning Regulations Fig. 7.2-A.
[19] Id.
[20] Id. at fig. 7.2-A.
[21] Id.