David, there seems to be a real problem with your example. First, you state that zoning mandates 28 spaces, but the article says that the building will have 6,413 square feet of retail and 7,085 s.f. of office space. This would require 9 spaces for the office use and 12 spaces for the retail use, for a total of 21 spaces, not 28. On the other hand, OP’s parking recommendations would require 35 spaces for this project, which has a total of 13,498 s.f. of retail and office space. In a C-2-A zone, OP’s parking recommendations require one space for every 300 s.f. of office or retail space in excess of 3,000 s.f.

by Tom on Jul 26, 2008 9:33 am  

Tom, do you have a link for the actual recommendations for all zones? The document David has linked indicates that some minimums would be retained, but tailored to account for transit access. This site is within a stones' throw from a Metro station.

Also, let's realize that the proposed building on Pennsylvania would have just about 100% lot coverage. The required square footage needed to accommodate 28 parking spaces (assuming an average of 450 sf per space, for the space and circulation space) is 12,600 sf - for a 13,000 sf building!

Think about that. That means 2 floors of below ground parking. This is the reason you don't get 2 floor infill projects like this - parking requirements.

by Alex B. on Jul 26, 2008 12:43 pm  

The OP recommendations are posted on the Office of Zoning web-site, as well as on the Office of Planning web-site. Also, the regulations mandate only 21 spaces, not 28. The current regulations allow for a reduction in that requirement for proximity to Metro, but that site would not be eligible for an automatic reduction, since it borders on a rowhouse zone. OP's recommendation would require 35 spaces for this project, not the current 21 spaces.

The article didn't mention loading berths and loading platforms, but for that amount of retail space, they would be required, both with the current regulations and with OP's proposed new regulations. Where would the loading berth be located. If it is in the alley and the building covers the entire lot, will there be enough room for the trucks to maneuver? Will they interfere with the residences on the other side of the alley? If there is no loading facilities, will they instead by using the curb space and interfering with pedestrian traffic?

OP is also recommending a reduction in the size of the parking spaces and the aisle widths, so you might need to recalculate the average square footage per space.

by Tom on Jul 26, 2008 1:28 pm  

I understand your stance on removing parking requirements altogether (and the requirement here is much too great regardless), but what would be your impression of allowing those 21 spaces (or some reduced number) to be 'purchased' (stripped of their parking meter) from a multiuse city garage within 1000 feet of the site?

by squalish on Jul 26, 2008 11:15 pm  

Squalish, I don't think that there is much controversy about allowing developers to meet parking requiremeents with off-site spaces or with shared spaces, provided that off-site spaces are close enough to the site, and Arlington uses 600 feet from the pedestrian entrance as the limit, and that for shared spaces, there need to be sufficient conditions to be certain that there are not conflicts hours of use for the shared space and that the shared spaces will remain available.

Nevertheless, in this example, OP is recommending that 35 spaces be required, not the 21 spaces required in the current regulation. However, OP will allow the developer to pay DDOT a substantial sum to reduct that requirement to 18.

by Tom on Jul 27, 2008 8:44 am  

Good point that the requirements are actually increased for office uses in C-2 districts.

There are a few other reasons this particular project may nto require that much parking:

• In TOD districts, requirements are waived altogether. TOD districts aren't yet defined, and it's important to push for all Metro stations to be included.
  
  
• The regulations do allow shared parking. The developer could reduce parking for the offices by working out an agreement with a nearby non-residential building. I would modify this to additionally allow sharing parking with a residential use.
  
  
• If DDOT won't grant a curb cut for this project and there's no alley, the parking would be waived.

Still, looking at this project, it's become clear that there are some areas where the new regulations continue to require too much parking.

by David Alpert on Jul 28, 2008 8:31 am  

Yeah, the commercial corridor zoning requirements are still quite stringent. I understand the reasons for that (spillover), but people also need to be aware of the consequences. requiring so much parking pretty much means that the only kind of redevelopment projects you'll get will be on a very large scale. To take that Potomac Ave Metro example, parking requirements like these make those single-lot, 2-4 story infill buildings next to impossible to finance. The only option is the large scale development, as seen by the Jenkins Row condos up the block (with the new Harris Teeter).

The bottom line is that cars do not fit in the same scale as fine grained urbanism. Requiring that we provide for parking makes building at that scale impractical, if not impossible.

Still, the bulk of the recommendations are good. As David mentions, this could very well be considered a TOD zone. Also, there may be an easy way for a developer to opt out of the required parking by right (as per the OP recommendations) via a payment to DDOT.

The other option, of course, is to consider the fact that the zoning may be at fault. Such on-site reqirements may make sense in a lower-density portion of the district, but for a site so close to a metro station, they do not. Perhaps DC's commercial corridors are too varied for one catch-all zone to cover them.

by Alex B. on Jul 28, 2008 9:40 am  

How much does underground parking add to such a project's costs?

Does that then add to the building's annual property taxes?

by Douglas Willinger on Jul 28, 2008 8:24 pm