Category: Zoning

Parking Changes Possible for Montgomery County Restaurants

Prospective restaurant owners in Montgomery County soon may have a less thorny zoning code to contend with that includes much lower parking requirements.

New restaurants would only have to build four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet as opposed to 25 spaces, a restriction that may leave some businesses with empty lots and deter new development.

“You have big parking lots at shopping centers with a lot of empty spaces,” said Councilwoman Nancy Floreen (D- At Large) of Garrett Park, who chairs the committee.

“That’s a foolish use of limited resources,” she said. “And our goal in urban redevelopment is certainly to encourage less driving and more alternative modes of transportation.”

The zoning code update is part of a three-year modernization effort to simplify its language and adjust a few other policies, including taking neighboring priorities into consideration for new and re-development.

Those changes are in the hands of Montgomery County’s Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee.

A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Nov. 12, after which the matter will likely go to the full council, said Jeffrey Zyontz, legislative attorney for the County Council.

One aspect of the policy remains the same. Building owners may pay a fee rather than provide parking if they are in one of Montgomery’s parking districts: Bethesda, North Bethesda, Wheaton, Silver Spring or Montgomery Hills.

New restaurants in mixed-use buildings have even lower requirements, Zyontz said.

Restaurants can choose to supply as much parking as they want because there is no maximum.

The policy will only apply to new structures, Zyontz added.

“An old restaurant would just have too much parking. A tragedy,” he said. “But surface parking in some places really isn’t a good thing if you want people to walk around in that environment.”

Several groups, the Montgomery County Sierra Club, Coalition for Smarter Growth and Action Committee for Transit applauded the proposed lower requirements but said they don’t go far enough in shifting focus away from cars.

The county’s urban pockets will still have ample parking if the council does away with any minimums, said Cheryl Cort, policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

“There’s a lot of parking available and a lot of parking sitting empty because it’s not available to a certain type of user at a certain time of day,” Cort said. “It needs to be managed more effectively and lot of these zoning requirements are producing too much parking and subsidizing driving and car ownership.”

Restaurants and the building owners they rent from would still provide spaces if it was in their best interest, said Ethan Goffman, transit chairman of the Montgomery County Sierra Club.

“You don’t want to distort the market to encourage more driving and more parking,” he said. “We want to move away from a jump-in-the-car oriented society.”

Outside the fold of parking districts, new businesses shouldn’t see much impact from the new policy, said Marilyn Balcombe, president of the Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber of Commerce.

Click here to read the original story. 

ANC Smart Growth Summer Camp

ANC Smart Growth Summer Camp

At Smart Growth Summer Camp on August 21, 2013, Matthew Bell of the University of Maryland, School of Architecture and David Fields of Nelson\Nygaard discussed urban design, transportation, and the role ANC Commissioners can play in enacting positive change using smart growth principles. We brought together ANC Commissioners from across the city to meet, learn more, and share their stories.

Proposed D.C. Zoning Code Re-Write Sparks Debate

zrrThe first major re-write of Washington’s zoning code since it was established in 1958 is expected to be submitted by the Office of Planning today, ending six years of work and triggering another lengthy public process before the District’s Zoning Commission, which will have the final say on new zoning policies.

Among the most controversial proposals is the effort to make D.C. less car-dependent by eliminating mandatory off-street parking space minimums in new development in downtown D.C. Planning Director Harriet Tregoning had also proposed to eliminate parking minimums in transit corridors, but recently changed her position to only reduce those minimums.

Tregoning’s change has left advocates on both sides of the debate unhappy.

“We’re encouraged that there’s not going to be an absolute rule that there will be no parking minimums. We think that’s a step in the right direction, but we are still very concerned because the planning director of the District of Columbia has shown her hand. She, for whatever reason, does not believe there is a parking issue throughout much of the District,” said AAA MidAtlantic spokesman Lon Anderson.

“We are disappointed the city has listened to the opposition to progressive reforms and is backing down on the important reform of removing parking minimums in areas that are well served by transit. The proposal would address a number of the biggest problems with parking minimums but we still maintain that parking minimums are not the right approach to building a more affordable, sustainable city,” said Cheryl Cort, the policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

At the heart of the controversy lies the question: how much parking does a growing, thriving city need as developers continue to erect new housing, office and retail space near Metro stations, in bus corridors, and downtown D.C. The alleged scarcity of parking spaces today is a common complaint of motorists, but those who favor dumping the parking minimums say residents and visitors will have adequate alternatives to automobile ownership, like car-sharing services, Metro rail and bus, and Capital Bikeshare.  Smart growth advocates also point out developers will still be able to build parking if the market demands it, but the decision will be left to them, not decided by a mandate.

“We’re building a lot of parking that generates a lot of traffic, undermining the best use of our transit system,” Cort said.

“We spent the last 100 years building our society to be automobile dependent and then to try to change that in a very short period of time is really imposing an awful lot in a region that is still very, very dependent on the automobile,” counters Anderson.

About 38 percent of all D.C. households are car-free, according to U.S. Census data.

Photo courtesy of AP Photo/Michael Dwyer. Copyright 2013 by WMAL.com. All rights reserved.

Click here to read the original story>>

D.C. planners drop proposal to end minimum parking rule for developers

Bowing to vocal opposition, District planners have backed off a controversial proposal to eliminate long-standing requirements that developers in some areas include parking spaces in their projects.

The decision not to wholly abandon “parking minimums” in outlying neighborhoods served by Metrorail and high-frequency bus lines comes as planners prepare to submit a wholesale rewrite of the city’s zoning code for approval by the Zoning Commission and shortly after opponents repeated their concerns at a council hearing.

The elimination of parking requirements in “transit zones” had been promoted zealously by Harriet Tregoning, director of the Office of Planning, and her deputies as a necessary response to a city growing more populous and less car-dependent. But residents in some neighborhoods viewed the proposal skeptically, claiming it was based on unfounded assumptions and would only worsen the scarcity of curbside parking.

Tregoning disclosed the change during an interview Friday on WAMU-FM, where she acknowledged she had got “a lot of feedback” about the parking changes. “It’s certainly in response to what we’ve heard from a lot of people,” she said.

In a subsequent interview, Tregoning said the planning office still intended to pursue elimination of parking minimums downtown and in fast-growing, close-in neighborhoods such as the Southwest Waterfront and NoMa. But in other areas eyed for the change, she said, the minimums would be “substantially” reduced rather than eliminated entirely.

“A lot of people were very, very concerned with the concept of no parking minimums,” she said. “I wanted to take that out of the discussion so we could focus on what is reasonable.”

Opponents “seemed to be really hung up by what they perceived as an ideological position,” she added. “I’m not an ideologue. I’m very practical. The practical effect is not very different.”

For a multi-unit residential building under the new proposal, Tregoning said, developers would have to create one parking space for every three units in most areas. They could also apply to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a “special exception” to the minimum. Under current rules, the minimums vary but often require one space for every two units.

The zoning rewrite is nearing the end of a five-year process that has included discussions about liberalizing rules for “accessory” apartments and corner stores in residential neighborhoods. But the parking debate emerged over the past several months as by far the most contentious point of discussion, generating push-back from several neighborhood groups and AAA Mid-Atlantic.

The decision to back off the elimination of parking minimums vexed a group of activists who view it as a cornerstone of efforts to make the city denser and more transit-oriented.

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which had rallied support for the measure, said Sunday it was “disappointing” to see Tregoning ease off a measure that could have helped make housing more affordable by lowering development costs.

“I think it would have been much simpler and effective” to eliminate the minimums and allow the market to dictate how much parking developers provide, he said, adding that “we’ll still call for the cleaner, market-based approach” at the Zoning Commission.

Some leading skeptics of the original proposal said it was too soon to tell if the revised parking-minimum measures would prove acceptable.

“It’s fine, but I’m not sure it goes far enough,” said Alma Gates, who has monitored the zoning rewrite for the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, a group of civic activists with a special interest in planning matters. “I’m waiting to see it in writing. . . . We’re talking about a big issue here. It affects everyone who has a car or [is] thinking about a car or coming to Washington.”

Juliet Six, a Tenleytown resident who has been vocal in opposing the parking measures, voiced extremely cautious optimism about Tregoning’s comments. She suggested that the announcement was calibrated to create an illusion of consensus as the debate moves to the Zoning Commission. “This is one way to take the heat off,” she said.

Tregoning acknowledged the change would “make it easier” for the zoning revision to gain the commission’s approval. The planning office is expected to submit the rewritten zoning code, totaling more than 700 pages, to the commission July 29. It is unclear when the body will hold hearings and give its final approval.

Click here to read the original story>>

Statement on DC Office of Planning Decision on Parking Minimums

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 12, 2013

CONTACT: Alex Posorske, (202) 675-0016 ext. 126

Statement on DC Office of Planning Decision on Parking Minimums

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today on the Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU, the Director of the DC Office of Planning, Harriet Tregoning, announced that DCOP was scrapping its proposal to eliminate parking minimums in transit zones.  The decision was also reported in the City Paper.

“We are disappointed that the opposition to progressive reforms has caused the city to back down on the important reform of removing minimum parking requirements.  Parking minimums have driven up the cost of housing in a city that needs more affordable housing. The costs of too much parking are being passed on to all residents even if they want to save money by living car free,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.  “Parking mandates are a legacy of a different era and have hurt America’s cities as Matt Yglesias so clearly laid out Slate this week.”

Greater Greater Washington has covered the issue extensively including a response today.

“We are waiting to review the new proposal from DCOP and we hope that it will still move our city in a more affordable and sustainable direction.  We understand that there will be no minimums throughout our expanded downtown from the West End to NOMA and to our two revitalizing riverfronts,” said Schwartz.  “Moreover, parking requirements will still be lowered in the city’s transit zones. That’s as it should be.  With the expanded transit, walking, biking, and carsharing options that DC now offers, we shouldn’t be mandating more parking than we need or than people will use.”

The Coalition for Smarter Growth will be continuing its campaign for a progressive update to the city’s outdated zoning code including rollback of parking minimums, easier requirements for accessory dwelling units, corner stores in rowhouse neighborhoods, and other components that will make the code easier to understand and more appropriate for a modern, transit-oriented city.

 

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington D.C. region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, and transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies needed to make those communities flourish. To learn more, visit the Coalition’s website at www.smartergrowth.net.

 

###

Zoning Rewrite Will Keep Parking Minimums Intact Throughout Much of D.C., But Not Downtown

zrr2Harriet Tregoning, the director of D.C.’s Office of Planning, just made some big news as far as the city’s developers, smart-growth advocates, and car owners are concerned. The long-overdue update to D.C.’s 55-year-old zoning code, which the office is currently working on, will preserve mandatory parking minimums in transit zones for new residential and commercial developments.

Tregoning made the announcement during a segment on WAMU’s The Politics Hour. While D.C. has quite a large car-free population—38.5 percent of households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—car owners have worried that the end of parking minimums at new developments would tighten the availability of on-street parking.

Developers that construct new buildings in transit zones—within a half-mile of a Metro station or quarter-mile of a busy bus stop—are required to outfit those projects with a certain number of parking spaces. Critics of the policy say the requirements drive up costs of new housing units by an average of 12.5 percent, WAMU reported earlier this month.

Instead of allowing developers to install as many or as few parking spots as they like, Tregoning said the minimums will be reduced. The Office of Planning will submit its code overhaul to the city’s Zoning Commission later this month.

UPDATE, 5 p.m.: Tregoning adds that the elimination of parking minimums will still apply to downtown D.C., the definition of which is being expanded according to a map she sent to DCist. The area colored in orange is what current zoning laws consider to be “downtown,” but when Tregoning’s office submits its report to the zoning commission, downtown will be expanded outward to include the entire shaded area, which stretches from Dupont Circle to NoMa. The map also includes a southern swath of the city encompassing Southwest Waterfront and Navy Yard.

zrr3

Even though the areas the Office of Planning include many of D.C.’s construction sites, Tregoning told Housing Complex she expects some backlash from the smart-growth advocates who would have preferred the entire city to lose its parking requirements. And sure enough, the backlash came quickly in the form of the Coalition for Smart Growth.

“We are disappointed that the opposition to progressive reforms has caused the city to back down on the important reform of removing minimum parking requirements,” Stewart Schwartz, the group’s executive director said in a statement. “The costs of too much parking are being passed on to all residents even if they want to save money by living car free. Moreover, parking requirements will still be lowered in the city’s transit zones. That’s as it should be. With the expanded transit, walking, biking, and carsharing options that DC now offers, we shouldn’t be mandating more parking than we need or than people will use.”

Photo Courtesy of Kerrin Nishimura, DCist.

Click here to read the original story>>

Testimony before The Hon. Andrea Harrison, Chair, Prince George’s County Council Re: Support for CB-20-2013: Expedited Transit-Oriented Development

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Our organization works to
ensure that transportation and development decisions in the Washington, D.C. region, including the
Maryland suburbs, accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel
choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas.

We wish to express our support for CB-20-2013, which is an important step to reducing an institutional
barrier to attracting new investment at Metro stations. CB 20 offers a public process that gives greater
predictably to the review of development applications while also preserving essential public accountability.

We ask the Council also consider creating an evaluation mechanism in the bill so that its performance can be
regularly assessed and reported out to the Council, Planning Board and public. This bill’s expedited
development review process, along with other incentives for TOD, should be regularly assessed so that the
County can fine tune incentives and procedures that are most effective at achieving the goal of quality
transit-oriented development.

While we believe CB 20 will be helpful in encouraging more quality transit-oriented development
applications, we suggest that this does not substitute for rationalizing and reducing the complexity of the
zoning ordinance. We urge the Council to pursue the longer-term and systematic recommendations of the
2009 report: Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Streamlining the
Development Review Process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort
Policy Director

Montgomery parking requirements looser, but not enough

Montgomery County’s new zoning code will allow less parking in new developments in order to use land more efficiently and encourage alternatives to driving. However, the regulations still require parking in ways that will hinder the walkable urban places the county wants to build.


Space for people, or space for cars? All photos by the author.For four years, the Planning Department has been revising its complicated, unwieldy zoning code. First written in 1928, the code hasn’t been updated since 1977, when the county was still mostly suburban. The new code will go before the County Council in a public hearing June 11.

Under the current code, buildings must have lots of parking, even near transit or in areas where most people don’t drive. The new parking regulations are simpler and allow developers to build fewer parking spaces, though they do require other amenities, like bike racks, changing facilities and spaces for car sharing or carpools.

New rules require less parking, more amenities

The new code reduces parking requirements throughout the county, especially in its parking benefit districts where public parking is available, like Silver Spring, Bethesda, Wheaton, Montgomery Hills and eventually White Flint.

Restaurants currently must have 25 parking spaces per 1000 square feet, a little smaller than a Chipotle. Under the new rules, a restaurant would only need between 4 and 10 spaces, depending on whether it was in a parking district. Meanwhile, office buildings outside a parking district will only need 2.25 spaces per 1000 square feet, compared to 3 today.

Some rules have been simplified. The current law requires different amounts of parking for different kinds of stores; for instance, a “country market” must provide 5 parking spaces for each 1000 square feet, while a furniture store needs only 2. Under the new code, all stores would be required to have 3.5 spaces per 1000 square feet in parking districts, and 5 spaces elsewhere.

New buildings would also have to accommodate alternate modes of transportation by providing bike parking. Larger buildings will have to include space for car sharing, while developers would be able to swap out car parking spaces for carpool spaces, bikeshare stations or changing facilities.

However, the parking requirements for housing won’t change much. Single-family homes and townhomes would still need 2 off-street parking spaces or 1 if they’re in a parking district, same as before, while new apartments would need at least 1 parking space, regardless of where they are. However, apartment developers could build less parking if they “unbundle” them, meaning that residents could buy or rent a space separately from their unit.

Do we still need parking requirements?

While the new requirements are an improvement, some local groups argue that there shouldn’t be parking requirements at all. The Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Montgomery County Sierra Club, and the Action Committee for Transit, where I sit on the board, have all come out against parking minimums.


Parking requirements don’t always make great places.Why? For starters, parking is expensive to build and rarely pays for itself. Construction costs for a space in a parking lot are about $3,500, compared to $30,000 for one in a garage and $100,000 for one underground, not counting the cost of land. Parking fees rarely cover these expenses alone, so the costs get passed on to the public in other ways, like higher prices at a restaurant that’s charged higher rents by its landlord.

Meanwhile, our communities pay for a glut of parking. Surface parking lots that are only full on Black Friday take up valuable space that could be used for buildings or parks instead. And even attractively designed parking garages like this one in Rockville still create a dead space, hurting street life. On top of that, parking lots produce a lot of stormwater runoff, polluting waterways.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have any parking, but the costs of excess parking outweigh the benefits. As Matt Yglesias writes in Slate, people will continue to want parking, and any developer who wants to stay in business will satisfy them without being told to:

Almost 100 percent of Washington-area residents like to sleep on a soft comforable surface at night. But there’s no regulatory requirement that residential buildings contain mattresses. The lack of mattress mandates doesn’t mean people are forced to sleep on the floor. It means that if people want to sleep on a mattressand they generally dothey need to go buy one.

Once you take away the Agricultural Reserve, residential neighborhoods, and other uses, you’re left with about 4% of Montgomery County that’s available for development. That land is valuable, and we need to use it well. Covering it with big parking lots isn’t the right solution, but that’s what our current zoning code requires. While the new law’s a step in the right direction, it may not go far enough to create the kind of places we want.

The County Council will hold a public hearing on the Zoning Rewrite on Tuesday, June 11 at 7:30pm. To sign up to testify or submit written comments, visit their website.

Photos courtesy of thecourtyard on Flickr.

Read the original article here>>

Testimony to Ms. Lynn Robeson, Esq., Zoning Hearing Examiner Re: 4831 West Lane LLC, Local Map Amendment G-954 and Development Plan Amendment DPA 13-01

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Our organization works to ensure that transportation and development decisions in the Washington, D.C. region, including the Maryland suburbs, accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas.

We want to express our strong support for the West Lane multi-family residential project because it enhances the diversity of housing choices and number of MPDUs within such close proximity to the Bethesda Metro station. This is a great benefit to the county and the region because the building provides more housing, especially affordable housing, in a job-rich area, next to Metro. This reduces overall traffic in the region, shortens commutes, reduces household transportation costs, and gives more moderate income households access to the jobs and amenities of a highly desirable community.

After reviewing the proposed plans and public record, consulting with residents, and walking the site, we believe that the project offers its housing benefits through a sensitive and appropriate approach to the building design. The proposed building provides an attractive contribution to a pedestrian-oriented environment and complements the existing nearby residential buildings.

We are especially pleased to see the building’s relationship to Montgomery Lane which forms a supportive urban pedestrian environment. The existing and planned buildings along the north side of Montgomery Lane form a continuous street edge, which the proposed West Lane building completes. The 12 foot upper story setback provides visual interest to the building and addresses concerns of neighbors. A greater setback is not necessary or desirable. A greater setback will not further enhance the ground-level pedestrian environment. In addition, further unnecessary shrinkage of the building could threaten the number of MPDUs provided, while offering no increased public benefit.

The public use space provided at the corner of West Lane and Montgomery Lane is a good approach if it incorporates the main entrance of the building. The public use space at this location achieves two important objectives. It decreases the mass of the building by stepping back the building’s frontage, but still maintains the important building line along the street edge. It also provides a usable urban public space for people to wait or meet friends. The success of the public use space is dependent upon the entrance of the building opening up onto the public use space.

The appropriately scaled building and the well planned public use space are compatible with the neighborhood. The increased number of units ensures more pedestrians on the street – which is consistent with the Sector Plan and a benefit to all. The Sector Plan’s housing diversity goals are also furthered by the West Lane project. The proposed units are smaller and more affordable than those offered in surrounding buildings and include a substantial number of MPDUs – all within 950 feet of the Metro station.

For all of these reasons, the Coalition for Smarter Growth urges approval of the 4831 West Lane project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cort
Policy Director

Support of proposed ZTA revising the requirements for permitting accessory apartments

We strongly support the zoning text amendment proposal to revise and similify the requirements for permitting accessory dwellings. We commend the Planning Board for addressing some of the key problems within the current rules which are discouraging the creation of accessory apartments that are perfectly compatible with existing neighborhoods. We also commend the Board for recognizing the potential of accessory units as a key opportunity to address the county’s tremendous affordable housing shortfall.