AgdaPkt 2006-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page 26 Basically, most Downtown uses have been placed in the "Commercial" category. This category includes uses which will use similar spaces and therefore facilitates the routine changes in tenancies which occur in all downtowns. The "Commercial" category also includes an array of uses which have different peak periods of activity, and therefore have an opportunity to take advantage of shared-parking efficiencies. Residential and hotel uses are the only uses that were separated out and given their own categories, because they behave so much differently from the other uses. Hotels were separated primarily because their parking needs cannot accurately be assessed based on square footage of floor area, but must be assessed based on the guest romp count and because it is uncommon for hotel room space to regularly switch to commercial use or vice-versa. Residential uses also share these traits. In addition, residences are unique in that the occupants of residential units will typically demand private, exclusive-use stalls and therefore cannot contribute to shared parking efficiencies. And unlike restaurants seats or office cubicles, the number of apartment units or hotel rooms cannot change without significant construction activity. Minimums AND Maximums It is worth noting that we are focused on creating MINIMUM parking requirements. Weare not trying to calculate the optimum number of spaces, nor are we trying to calculate how much parking each development "ought" to have. We are trying to calculate the minimum number of spaces below which Downtown cannot function. There is a difference. With spaces costing $20,000 to $30,000 each or more, we do not want to require one space too many. It is important to note that developers want their projects to succeed financially, and so most will not under-park their facilities. In fact, many developers will voluntarily provide more parking than the minimums recommended here, which is fine. While it is very unlikely due to high land costs, it is possible that some developers will attempt to overpark their projects. Because of the high per-space cost of going under or above ground, overparked projects would probably consist of large surface lots. While this won't be common, it is unacceptable. It is possible to have too much parking. This would damage the urban design of Downtown by creating greater distances between buildings and by creating harsh, unpleasant landscapes of asphalt. For this reason, a maximum parking requirement should also be set for each use. This is becoming a common practice. It is recommended that the maximum allowed parking should be double the minimum requirements. For example, if the minimum requirement for a particular use is 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, then the maximum allowed parking would be 6 parking spaces per square foot. This allows flexibility without allowing things to get out of hand. Shared Parking Incentive A new feature introduced by the proposal is a shared parking incentive. Commercial and hotel projects which allow anyone to park in their parking lots would be given a lower minimum parking requirement. This is because different types of businesses have different peak parking periods, and by sharing parking the overall number of spaces needed in downtown is reduced, as was discussed earlier in this report. Thus, developments which share parking will have a lower '1>:J~~ 19 . _.~.-,.. --_.. ._-~. -, ... ,-,."., -"._-'---~.-'-'_._'-'---"---'-'.'---""--'-' --..--.-.----.----. .,--- .