Chapter 3.1
Development Patterns and Infill

• ALL
• Remove Code Barriers
• Create Incentives
• Fill Regulatory Gaps

Eliminate or Reduce Parking Minimums in Areas with Access to Transit-Oriented Development

INTRODUCTION

Transit oriented development (TOD) is development around transportation hubs that aims to establish compact, pedestrian-friendly communities where residents can live, work, and enjoy recreational activities without the need for automobiles (for our brief specifically describing TOD ordinances and their impacts see Transit-Oriented Development).[1] One of the base principles for effective TOD is the reduction or elimination of minimum parking standards for properties near public transportation hubs.[2] Reforming parking policies to decrease the amount of off-street parking near stations can maximize the potential for TOD by promoting pedestrian mobility, affordability, health, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions within districts.[3]

TOD ordinances are often found in development codes alongside regulations calling for greater pedestrian mobility (for more recommendations specifically addressing pedestrian mobility see Pedestrian Mobility Section) and can apply both to new construction and redevelopment of existing structures. A common theme in TOD ordinances is to recalibrate municipal codes to reduce or eliminate parking requirements.

Parking regulations near transit hubs and TODs vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some provisions are broad in their application, applying to all areas within multiple districts.[4] Others operate narrowly by employing overlay or special use districts in specific locations surrounding public transit locations. Local governments can also incentivize the elimination of TOD parking by offering developers floor-area ratio and minimum lot area per unit bonuses, in addition to other benefits to those that reduce or eliminate parking spaces.[5]

EFFECTS

Parking lots account for large swaths of land use in urban areas.[6] An abundance of parking is associated with troubling patterns in communities, such as traffic jams, carbon emissions, and the costs of lost opportunity from underutilized land.[7] Allowing development or other uses in areas that would otherwise be dedicated to parking provides financial benefits to land owners who may be able to maximize the property and property value.[8] Large parking areas also heavily influence how people travel; individuals are much more likely to drive to traditionally constructed developments that are hostile to pedestrians and public transportation.[9] This increase in driving harms the environment by adding carbon emissions that might otherwise be mitigated and may add costs to housing.[10]

Parking lots also harm the natural environment by removing habitat, complicating stormwater management, and contributing to “heat island effect,” where absorption of heat in overbuilt environments causes bubbles of increased temperatures.[11] Oil and other automobile waste wash off of parking areas and into water streams, thereby decreasing water quality.[12] Appropriately sized parking can enable communities to retain native vegetation, which in turn slows the progress of stormwater and filters out pollutants before entering the ground (for our brief providing examples of parking maximum ordinances and their impacts see Parking Maximums).[13]

Some studies have also shown that those living near transit hubs tend to walk more often, while also owning fewer automobiles, thus promoting health while decreasing harms like pollution and traffic congestion.[14] Community members are more engaged with their neighborhoods and one another in densely populated areas surrounding transit stations.[15] There are some indications that landowners near TODs can see an increase in property value as a result of heightened activity around the transit hub.[16] This can benefit both individuals and communities through added tax revenues in TOD districts.[17]

EXAMPLES

San Antonio, TX

San Antonio reduces parking requirements around TODs. The City establishes TODs through the use of “Special Districts,” which are overlaid onto existing districts.[18] Through the TODs, the City wants to encourage mixed-use development downtown and in “neighborhood centers” that is intertwined with the available public transit, while strengthening the area’s pedestrian identity.[19] Developers are encouraged to design all downtown plans to be transit oriented so as to promote use from residents and visitors alike.[20] Properties within a quarter-mile of public transit stops are zoned as “TOD-C,” and those between a quarter and a half-mile are labeled “TOD-P.”

Properties in TOD-P districts are required to comply with only 75 percent of the minimum parking requirements articulated by the Code.[21] Properties within TOD-C districts, need only 50 percent of the minimum parking standards if they are between a quarter of a mile and 500 feet from a public transit stop.[22] Properties that are within 500 feet of a transit stop have no parking requirements.[23] Up to 75 percent of existing parking in these zones may be redeveloped so long as such development is designed for transit-oriented uses.[24]

To view the provision see San Antonio, TX, Unified Development Code § 35-208(n).

Chicago, IL

Residential developments in Chicago’s Business, Commercial and Downtown districts (B, C and D, respectively) may reduce their off-street parking requirements by up to 50 percent when their location is one-quarter of a mile from a rail station entrance or “bus line corridor roadway segment.”[25] The distance may be increased to a half-mile when the location is next to a “pedestrian street” as specifically defined in the ordinance.[26] These areas are eligible to eliminate parking minimums altogether through approval from the relevant authority when they are in compliance with other sections of Chicago’s Code.[27]

Parking requirements may be reduced by up to 100 percent upon City approval in the B, C, D and Manufacturing (M) districts when developments are zoned for non-residential uses and within a quarter-mile of a railway entrance or bus line corridor roadway segment, with the same half-mile extension applying when the building in question is next to a pedestrian street.[28] The half- and quarter-mile standard is “measured along a straight line between the rail station entrance and the nearest boundary of the lot to be developed” when accounting for rail stations, and “between the roadway segment centerline and the nearest boundary of the lot” when measuring the bus line corridor roadway segment.[29]

To approve a special use application that reduces any parking minimum by more than 50 percent, the Zoning Board of Appeals must determine that the Code’s general approval criteria is met, along with specific criteria provided in the section.[30] The general criteria requires developments to not hinder general welfare, be compatible with their surroundings, and promote pedestrian activity.[31] The specific criteria include complying with the goals listed in the City’s Transit Friendly Development Guide, providing alternative choices to auto travel for residents, and enhancing the pedestrian environment through devices such as wider sidewalks or outdoor seating.[32] High density mid-rise and high-rise residential developments in the RM6 and RM6.5 Residential Multiunit districts can reduce parking minimums in accordance with either a “Planned Development” as outlined in the code, or approval from the Zoning Administrator under a “Type I Rezoning Ordinance” who must satisfy an additional set of criteria.[33] Such criteria include being within 250 feet of an entrance to a railway, providing ample bicycle parking, and providing “alternatives to automobile ownership.”[34]

Chicago incentivizes parking reductions by offering bonuses to developers through eased restrictions on requirements such as minimum lot area per unit (MLA) and floor area ratio (FAR) standards.[35] For example, in the B-3 and C-3 districts, the minimum square footage for MLA measurements drops from 400 to 300 when the development garners City approval and provides one or fewer spaces per unit.[36] A similar set of requirements allows for an increase of FAR from 3 to 3.5, with the potential to reach 4 when developers place affordable housing in qualifying transit oriented developments.[37]

To view the provisions see Chicago, IL, Municipal Code of Chicago §§ 17-3-0402 – 17-3-0403,  17-10-102(B), 17-13-905(F) (2004).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES

Oakland, CA, Planning Code § 17.101H.070 (2015) (using parking fees to promote TOD).

South Salt Lake, UT, Code of Ordinances § 17.27.60(E)(4)(b) (2013) (offering a 25 percent decrease in parking requirements to commercial developments that meet certain criteria in its Transfer-Oriented Core Overlay district).

Miami, FL, Miami 21 Code App. J § 4.2(T5-T6) (2019) (allowing 30 percent parking reductions in the Wynwood NRD-1 district for developments that are granted a waiver by the City).

Honolulu, HI, Revised Ordinances of the City and County of Honolulu 1990 § 21-9.100-4 (current through 2020) (requiring a unique plan for each TOD zone that eliminates or reduces off-street parking and expands the use of shared parking spaces).