WHAT IS THIS PROCESS ABOUT?

How Much Parking to Require for New Apartments and Condos? A presentation to NAIOP on the Residential Parking Working Group In anticipation of a presentation to the March 22nd NAIOP meeting, Arlington County staff have prepared

this handout that includes visuals and notes about the Residential Parking Working Group. While some

may already be familiar with the scope of this process, staff have included some background slides to

remind readers who may have seen this material before or for readers who are not familiar with the

Working Group

WHAT IS THIS PROCESS ABOUT?

M U L T I - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N T I A L O F F - S T R E E T P A R K I N G M E T R O C O R R I D O R S O N L Y

P R E S E N T A T I O N O N T H E R E S I D E N T I A L P A R K I N G W O R K I N G

G R O U P 3

Parking

Recommend refined parking policy with clear and consistent criteria for approving projects with a ratio of parking spaces to residential units that’s below the zoning code.

Limited scope: o Multi-family residential buildings o Metro Corridors

How Much Parking to Require for New Apartments and Condos? A presentation to NAIOP on the Residential Parking Working Group

of 23

WHAT IS THIS PROCESS NOT ABOUT?


G R O U P 4

This process is not about:

On-street parking o We are not changing on-street parking rules here. o Later this year we will start the work of examining the residential permit parking.

program and how it’s functioning or not functioning, o We will want to hear from you when it comes to looking at the RPP program, so stay

tuned for that.

A zoning code change


of 23

WHO IS ON THIS WORKING GROUP?


G R O U P 5

Arlington Residents and Representatives from a Range of Stakeholder Groups

Arlington Civic Federation Mr. Dennis Gerrity

Resident-at-Large Mr. Aaron David Simon

Planning Commission Mr. James Schroll, Chair

Citizens Advisory Commission on Housing Mr. Paul Browne

Economic Development Commission Ms. Sally Duran

Environment & Energy Conservation Commission Mr. Gabriel Thoumi

Transportation Commission Mr. Michael Perkins

Arlington Chamber of Commerce Ms. Michelle Winters

Mr. Rob Mandle

NAIOP [Real Estate Developer Trade Organization] Mr. Ben Spiritos

Mr. Daniel VanPelt

To assist staff in this process, the County Manager selected a group of 11 members from Arlington’s

various commissions and representatives from industry groups, including NAIOP.


of 23

THE POLICY CONTEXT


G R O U P 6

With this process, we’re building on and implementing years of policy and law. The community developed this policy with extensive resident involvement, which is why we refer to this process as sitting at the top of a human pyramid.


of 23

ARLINGTON’S POLICY CONTEXT


G R O U P 7

Comprehensive Plan

General Land Use Plan

(GLUP)

Master Transportation

Plan

Affordable Housing

Master Plan

Sector Plans

Zoning Ordinance

Site Plan ProcessOther Policies and

Programs

Parking Meters

Residential Permit Parking

Demand Management

We are here

Comprehensive Plan Elements

The County's General Land Use Plan calls for high-density development to be concentrated in the Metro Corridors, with housing available at a variety of prices.

Parking Element. Adopted by the County Board in 2009, this document was based on: o Work with the Planning, Transportation, Economic Development Commissions. o Public work sessions with Disability Advisory Commission, retail and real estate

representatives, other groups like the Clarendon Alliance. o Two public review sessions of draft. o Review and votes by the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, and County

Board

Affordable Housing Master Plan Implementation Framework calls for affordable housing parking standards.


of 23

WHAT DOES THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION

PLAN ENCOURAGE?


G R O U P 8

Balance parking

with its context

and other

community goals

The Parking and Curbspace Management Element of our Master Transportation Plan guides us to o Policy 6: Ensure that minimum parking needs are met and excessive parking is not built. o Policy 9. Maximize the sharing of parking spaces, including in private parking lots and garages,

by various users throughout the day and night. o Policy 8: Allow reduced parking space requirements for new development in

o close proximity to frequent transit service and o exemplary access by non‐motorized travel modes and car‐sharing vehicles. o shared parking

o Policy 11: Reduce or eliminate parking requirements for… o Affordable Housing o Making space for retail or subway entrances


of 23

ARLINGTON’S EVOLVING TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM


G R O U P 9

The legal foundations of the Residential Parking Working Group process is the County’s Zoning Ordinance. Over the past decades, the transportation system in Arlington has changed a great deal, but the zoning ordinance has not.


of 23

BY-RIGHT ZONING REQUIREMENTS STAY THE

SAME


G R O U P 10

In 1962, current ratio was set. Some changes since then, including the creation of districts where the minimum is 1 space per unit.


of 23

ZONING CODE’S SITE PLAN PROCESS ALLOWS

FLEXIBILITY


G R O U P 11

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Nu

mb

er

of

Pa

rkin

g S

pa

ce

s p

er

Ho

usin

g U

nit

o Zoning code does allow modifications through the Site Plan process. o Since 2010, the County Board has been acting on policy for reductions that we saw in the

Master Transportation Plan o The Working Group’s Job: Spell out the conditions that will allow projects to be built with

reduced parking ratios if the developer thinks that they can build less and still meet the needs of their residents.


of 23

NATIONAL CONTEXT: COMMUNITIES AROUND NORTH

AMERICA ARE REVISING THEIR PARKING POLICIES


G R O U P 12

Minimums removed in at least one part of the city

Parking minimums lowered or removed for certain

uses

Currently discussing parking minimum laws

SOURCE: STRONG TOWNS. SEE HTTP://WWW.STRONGTOWNS.ORG/JOURNAL/2015/11/18/A-MAP-OF-CITIES-THAT-GOT-RID-OF-PARKING-MINIMUMS FOR

THE INTERACTIVE VERSION.

The Working Group process is taking place in the context of a lot of change in parking policy around the

United States. The map shown here describes the various cities and towns around the United States that

have reduced or removed parking minimum requirements.


of 23

REGIONAL CONTEXT: COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE

RECENTLY REVISED THEIR PARKING POLICIES

D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A A L E X A N D R I A


G R O U P 13

Relates minimum

parking

requirements to

transit

Defines “excess”

parking levels

Relates minimums to…

transit

walkability

affordable housing

Adds “maximums”

Two local examples are D.C. and Alexandria.

o Alexandria allows fewer parking spaces when projects are near Metro or Metroway. o If a project is within a one-half mile walk of a Metro station, developers can build 20% less

parking than the City would otherwise require. o Buildings within a half-mile walk of Metroway can get a 10% reduction. o Build fewer parking spaces for affordable housing. For middle-income family (60% of "area

median income") units, the building only needs to provide 0.75 spaces per unit, or three parking spaces for every four apartments.

o District of Columbia o Dramatically lowered parking minimums near transit. o TDM is actually required for what they define as “excess” parking.


of 23


G R O U P 14

Over the course of eleven meetings since September, the Working Group has heard from staff and outside speakers on the topics that Stephen mentioned. We also hosted open houses, some small group discussions, and took comment online in December and January.


of 23

1. Cost of parking influences cost of housing

2. Allow flexibility

3. Create predictability

4. More parking contributes to more driving

5. Fewer vehicles parked means less use of our

roadways

6. Address spillover concerns

THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS CRAFTED

GUIDING PRINCIPLES


G R O U P 15

Working Group Adopted 6 Principles

• In the first one, the Working Group recognized that the connection between the cost of building parking and the cost of building housing for people of all income levels.

• Second, the Working Group recognized that supply for parking is not one-size fits all.

• Third, the Working Group wanted to create a development review policy that clearly and predictably implements the broad transportation policies that I mentioned earlier.

• Principle 4: When you build more parking, you get more residents who have cars, and who will then drive them, increasing traffic on the roads

• In principle five, the Working Group recognized that reducing parking and driving will reduce impacts on the roads.

• Finally, the Working Group was especially conscious of the potential for spillover as a result of the policy.


of 23

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BASED ON

DISTANCE TO METRORAIL STATIONS


G R O U P 16

Minimum number of parking spaces increases

Parking Ratio Reductions based on distance to Metro

• Projects closer to Metro will be able to build less parking than projects farther away from Metro.

• Data from Arlington indicate that there is less demand for parking at buildings closer to Metro.

• Benefit: Allowing for less parking near Metro supports the use of other modes of transportation right where the County is investing in those modes.

• This is a policy that is expressly called for in the Master Transportation Plan and in sector plans.


of 23

LOWER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH

COMMITTED-AFFORDABLE UNIT


G R O U P 17

Parking Ratio Reductions for Affordable Housing

• Allow builders to build less parking for affordable units than for market-rate units.

• The deeper affordability commitment for each unit, the fewer parking spaces that builders will be required to build for each unit.

• Data from a variety of Arlington sources show us that households with lower incomes generally own fewer cars.

• Expressly called for the in Master Transportation Plan and the Affordable Housing Master Plan.

• Benefit: Will encourage more affordable housing development.

• Benefit: Will reduce the burden on the County’s Affordable Housing Investment Fund on projects that tap this public funding.


of 23

OPTION TO EXCHANGE VEHICLE PARKING FOR

BIKE, BIKE-SHARING, AND CAR-SHARING

AMENITIES AT THE BUILDING


G R O U P 18

• A builder could substitute 10 extra bike parking spaces for two car-parking spaces.

• Full sponsorship of a Bikeshare station could also reduce car-parking requirement. Up to 4 spaces for the largest station.

• A car-share space with a guarantee of service for at least three years would allow for up to 5 parking spaces.

• Benefit: Promotes biking and car-sharing, two efficient modes of transportation that reduce vehicle travel.

• Master Transportation Plan expressly calls for reductions in parking requirements with “exemplary access by non-motorized travel modes and car-sharing vehicles.”


of 23

OPTION FOR SOME PARKING TO BE SHARED

BETWEEN USES IN A MIXED-USE BUILDING

D E D I C A T E D P A R K I N G S H A R E D P A R K I N G


G R O U P 19

OfficeResidentialRequires analysis

from ULI Shared

Parking Model

OR

other model that

meets County

specifications

• The same parking space could be used by more than one use different times of the day, allowing the same number of people to park using less space.

• For example, in a mixed-use project, certain kinds of retail and residential, or residential and office.

• Benefit: Allows builders the option to increase the efficiency of their garages.

• Called for in the Master Transportation Plan and multiple sector plans.

• Some office projects already approved with shared parking like this, but we recommend that the County clearly lay out how shared parking would be approved.


of 23

ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO OFFER PARKING IN

NEARBY BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF ON THE

PROPERTY


G R O U P 20

800 ft. maximum

Same ownership

or 10+ year lease

• Instead of building new parking, a developer provides surplus parking somewhere else nearby for residents to use.

• If the two buildings are owned by the same company, then the builder just needs to show where residents from the new building will be able to park. Or, the builder can get a lease of 10 or more years.

• The other lot would need to be within 800 ft.

• The building would need to keep renewing leases. If, at some point in the future, a building owner wishes to change the number of parking spaces leased off site, then the owner would need to apply for a Minor Site Plan Amendment.

• Benefit: Many of our office buildings have an oversupply of parking. This is a way to use those resources more efficiently.

• Called for in the Master Transportation Plan and multiple sector plans.


of 23

CONDITIONS IMPOSED IF A DEVELOPER

CONSTRUCTS “EXCESS” PARKING


G R O U P 21

1.65 spaces / unit

Mitigation fee OR

Photos

carstackers.co.nz

joelgoodrich.com

Place parking in

Stackers

Tandem

configuration

• If a builder proposes to construct more than 1.65 spaces per unit (about 1.5 x the current zoning minimum), then they would be required to pay a mitigation fee to the County or put those spaces in tandem or stackers.

• Why? If a building has a lot of parking, then it’s likely to attract residents with lots of cars, cars that they will drive.

• Benefit: County wants to minimize traffic, so this payment will discourage excess parking construction and will allow the County to recoup the cost of increased driving. Or, if the excess parking is put in tandem or stacker spaces, then those cars will be less convenient to use on a daily basis, reducing driving.


of 23

ABILITY TO REDUCE NUMBER OF REQUIRED

SPACES IF THE PROPERTY HAS PHYSICAL

CONSTRAINTS


G R O U P 22

Sources of constraint

• Site size

• Historic buildings

• Immovable utilities

• Metro tunnels

• Soil conditions

• Many of the easiest-to-develop sites are developed.

• Some sites have historic buildings, immovable utilities, Metro tunnels, soil conditions that make meeting parking requirements difficult.

• Developers would be able to ask for reductions on a case-by-case basis when these conditions are present, but only after exploring off-site shared parking and other elements like building bike parking in lieu of car parking.

• Benefit: land in our densest areas is efficiently used. Smaller projects can move forward.


of 23


G R O U P 23


of 23

NOW THROUGH JULY


G R O U P 24

Ma

rch Working

Group finishes report

Online and in-person public engagement

Ap

ril

Information items at Commissions

Complete staff recommendation

Brief County Manager

Ma

y

Jun

e Action items at Commissions

Board Action

July Craft

implementation plan

o Working Group delivers its recommendation this month. o In March and April staff share it with the public through:

o Online comment site. o Two day-time webinars. o In-person presentations as requested.

o Presentations to o Transportation Commission o Housing Commission o Economic Development Commission o Planning Commission o Civic Federation

o Staff Formulates Recommendation o Staff look at Working Group recommendation, input from public and commissions. o Craft a staff recommendation for County Manager’s approval. o Approvals and Adoption o Action items with commissions and Board in June. o Add Planning Commission


of 23

• Sign up for e-mail updates, read project materials, and learn about

upcoming project meetings through the project web site.

• Provide your comments through on online survey (to go live in a few

weeks).

• Send an e-mail to [email protected] at any time.

• Attend the Commission and Board meetings when staff will present a

recommended policy (in April and June).

Go to www.arlingtonva.us

and search “Residential Parking Working Group”

HOW CAN YOU PROVIDE INPUT AS STAFF

CRAFTS A RECOMMENDATION?


G R O U P 25

We will have online comment form and in-person presentations as requested.

26P R E S E N T A T I O N O N T H E R E S I D E N T I A L P A R K I N G W O R K I N G

G R O U P

WHAT IS THIS PROCESS ABOUT?

Documents

Transcript of WHAT IS THIS PROCESS ABOUT?