Posts about Parking Minimums

Formulas for Bethesda and Silver Spring won't work countywide

Parking minimums like these did not impede the county's first wave of transit-oriented development, centered on the expensive downtowns of Bethesda and Friendship Heights. Rents and condo prices there are high enough to cover the cost of underground parking even if it goes unused.

In Silver Spring, where rents are lower, the county lifted the parking burden off developers' shoulders by building massive garages at taxpayer expense.

But the county can't afford to endlessly replicate the vast subsidies that went into downtown Silver Spring. Nor can the Bethesda model of luxury housing and expensive retail be copied everywhere. It would drive out current residents, and in any case there are only so many places where the market would support it.

The county needs a new model of revitalization, one that upgrades existing neighbor­hoods without displacing their population. This will not happen as long as off-street parking requirements make anything but luxury residences too expensive to build.

Decaying strip malls illustrate the problem. Planners hope that the strip malls can be rebuilt in a more urban style, with stores that open onto the sidewalk, a few floors of apartments above, and a parking garage behind the buildings. A row of duplexes, facing the single-family homes across the street, could complete the back side of such a development. Duplex housing, now very rare in the county, is more affordable for both the tenant and the owner (the rent helps pay the mortgage).

But under the zoning code, a developer cannot sell a duplex unless it has 4 parking spaces of its own. The cost of building 4 spaces in a parking garage is over $100,000—enough to put an otherwise affordable home far out of reach for a middle-class buyer.

Parking minimums serve a different purpose in single-family neighborhoods

Regardless of whether parking minimums are good policy, planners have sound political reasons for keeping them in Montgomery's single-family zones. They preserve the bargain that underlies the county's land use policy: keep single-family neighborhoods the way they are while promoting smart growth near transit.

Parking requirements serve a different purpose in suburban neighborhoods than in cities like DC. While the District's debate over minimums revolves around "spillover" that deprives residents of places to park, Montgomery homeowners would have space to put their cars with or without minimums because of two other laws.

The minimum lot sizes in the zoning code guarantee that every house has at least 60 feet of curb space. That is more than enough room for two cars, if there were no driveway. The resident parking permit program ensures that outsiders cannot park in those spaces.

Instead of guaranteeing space for cars, the rules effectively ensure that on-street spaces will usually be empty. Except in a few older neighborhoods where houses don't have driveways, mostly around Takoma Park, that's what housing subdivisions have always looked like in Montgomery. For many homeowners, car-free curbs are an essential element of their neighborhoods' suburban character, and the county has promised to preserve that for single-family zones as it becomes more urban elsewhere.

But minimum parking rules apply to commercial and apartment zones as well. There, off-street parking requirements are counterproductive. Left to its own devices, the real estate building and lending market will provide all the parking that is needed and more. The planning department should abolish parking minimums for mixed-use and multifamily residential zones, as DC is doing.

The vast majority of the work just updates, streamlines, and simplifies the text. Today, under the zoning code approved in 1958, rules and restrictions appear in general chapters that cover zone types or other, neighborhood-specific sets of rules called "overlays." Many rules use terms that aren't defined anywhere, like "building façade line," which seems very simple until you start thinking about buildings with rounded turrets.

There are also a few significant policy changes. In particular:

• More homeowners will be able to create accessory dwellings, like garage or basement apartments.
  
• A limited number of small art studios, corner groceries, shoe repair shops, hardware stores and the like will be able to open in residential areas when there aren't any commercial areas nearby.
  
• Fewer buildings will be forced to provide parking, or will not be forced to provide as much.
  
• More alley lots will be able to have houses.
  
• Green Area Ratio will require landscaping and other stormwater-managing features in projects, though not the low- and moderate-density residential buildings covered in the chapters released so far.

With the exception of the Green Area Ratio, a very 21st-century sustainability idea, the other changes acually harken more back to a past era than to the future. They correct some of the most egregious problems from the 1958 code, where it imposed social engineering ideas in vogue at the time that ended up eliminating local corner stores, pushed people out of urban neighborhoods, and forced new buildings to take a suburban form incompatible with the walkable communities that previously existed.

If Georgetown, Capitol Hill, or Petworth didn't exist today, they couldn't be legally built as they are. Even many single-family neighborhoods of detached houses like AU Park, Brookland, and Hillcrest are mostly illegal as well under current zoning. Where the new zoning code makes changes, it's to legalize the kind of development patterns that formed the neighborhoods residents treasure today, rather than forcing radically different forms which characterize much of the mistakes of the mid-to-late 20th century.

Accessory dwellings

Back when the 1958 zoning code was written, the average DC household had far more people than today. Families had more kids, senior citizens more often lived with adult children, and more young and/or single people lived in group homes and boarding houses than now.

Therefore, fewer people live in DC's existing houses than they did at the time. Allowing accessory dwellings is a way to let those buildings serve their historic population levels in the modern day. An accessory dwelling is a separate legal unit either in the same building as a larger, main residence or in an accessory building like a garage or carriage house.

Row house neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Columbia Heights, and Bloomingdale already allow these units because they are R-4 districts, which allow 2 apartments per building. But in the few R-3 row house neighborhoods, like Georgetown, the northern half of Petworth, Anacostia, and a few small others, these units are illegal except in those unusual buildings which are completely detached, and then only with a "special exception" from the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

There are many neighborhoods with semi-detached houses, where houses are connected in pairs (the orange areas in the above graphic), and accessory dwellings are also illegal in these buildings. Fully detached single-family homes (the yellow areas) can have accessory dwellings, but only by special exception (except to create housing for domestic employees in the 2nd story of a garage), and only in a main building, not a standalone garage or carriage house.

This is bad policy. These houses used to hold more people. Today, many owners are empty nesters who used to have kids in the house but no longer do. Retirees on fixed incomes find it harder to afford to keep up their homes. The simple solution is to let people rent out separate units to get some extra income, or even live in those small units and rent out the main house.

OP proposes a policy change to let people create accessory dwellings by right in the detached and semi-detached residential areas. In the R-3 row house areas, owners could create them as well, but would still need special exceptions.

This is a good change, but there's no reason to impose such burdens just on people in these row house districts, especially when only slightly denser row house districts allow far more by right. OP should amend its proposal to permit accessory dwellings by right in R-3 zones (which will be called R-14 in the new code) as well as in lower density ones.

Corner stores in residential areas

A big part of historic development patterns was the local corner stores selling many of the necessities of life. Far more Americans could walk a short distance to do their daily shopping than today. Those days aren't coming back, because malls and online shopping can be quite convenient, but there's still enormous value in having some local options.

The local shops of today might be different than those of the past, like yoga studios rather than general stores, but the principle remains. Under current zoning, however, no commercial use can locate in a residential zone.

OP's proposal would allow some limited retail in residential areas, but with a great number of restrictions:

• Only "Arts Design and Creation" (arts studio, furtniture making, radio broadcast station), "Food and Alcohol Service" (deli, ice cream parlor), "Retail" (drugstore, grocery, jewelry store, but not auto shop or firearm sales), and "Service" (bank, travel agency, tailor, but not daycare, animal boarding, health clinic, or sexually based business) uses are allowed.
  
• They can't be in any building within 500 feet of a commercial or mixed-use zone, so this doesn't let existing retail corridors expand (though, arguably, some of that might be a good idea).
  
• There can't be more than 3 other arts, retail or service uses within 500 feet, or more than 1 other food establishment, to prevent too much of a concentration of these non-residential uses in one area.
  
• It can't be above the ground floor of any building, except for artist live-work spaces. This prevents a building from becoming entirely commercial.
  
• It can't be larger than 2,000 square feet.
  
• It can't be open after 7 pm or before 8 am.
  
• There can't be more than 4 employees at the business at any time.
  
• It can't have more than 1 sign, a lighted side, or a sign sticking out from the building.
  
• All of the trash and materials have to be stored inside; there can't be a dumpster, for instance.
  
• Any alcohol sold has to be for consuming elsewhere, not at the business, and can't take up more than 15% of the business's floor area. That means a small grocery could offer some beer and wine, but there can't be a wine bar or liquor store.
  
• Food sales can't involve cooking food on-site, but reheating pre-cooked food is okay. Grease traps (a part of kitchens that do frying or other cooking with grease) aren't allowed.
  
• There can't be dry cleaning chemicals, so a dry cleaner in a residential district has to be the kind that sends its clothes out to be cleaned rather than doing the work in the building.

Despite these regulations, a number of people are nervous about allowing any commercial use in a residential area. They understandably worry about noise, traffic, and other effects of commercial activity. OP seems to have tried to set rules that cut off the problematic impacts, like late night activity.

Maybe there need to be additional restrictions, or maybe some of the proposed uses are just too risky for neighbors to be comfortable. If so, we should amend this section rather than scrap it entirely.

Minimum parking requirements

Few zoning rules have done more to harm urban neighborhoods than parking requirements. The view in the 1950s was that since everyone would drive everywhere all the time in The Future, all buildings need to have lots of space for cars.

It turned out, however, that many of the parking requirements were far too high, forcing buildings to dedicate precious space to parking lots. That makes construction more expensive and creates gaping holes in the urban fabric. It also pushes architects to design buildings around cars rather than people, making them less pedestrian-friendly and forcing residents to drive more and walk less.

In the low- and moderate-density residential areas covered by the zoning rules OP just released, buildings of 9 or fewer units don't have to build any parking. That's great, but many buildings still do. Nobody can build larger residential buildings in these zones, but existing ones become nonconforming.

All non-residential uses in these districts also have to build parking. That includes churches, schools, daycares, rec centers, chanceries, and retail. These are the very kinds of buildings that shouldn't be car-oriented in residential neighborhoods. A daycare in a residential area ought to be serving the neighbors, not attracting people from far away. If it has no parking, that's more likely.

Many neighborhoods have fought with churches which want to tear down historic row houses just to create parking lots for parishioners who don't live in the city. Minimum parking requirements only exacerbate this problem instead of solving it. Neighbors have fought with embassies about converting grassy yards to parking lots. Why make this mandatory in the zoning code?

The rationale for these requirements is that curbside space is limited, and neighbors don't want the patrons of these other uses to take up curbside parking. But the proper way to solve this problem is by pricing or restricting curbside parking, not to force such buildings to devote a lot of their space to parking which makes traffic even worse. If DCPS builds a new school in a residential neighborhood, building less parking, not more, lets kids have more space to play and encourages as many teachers as possible to take the train or bus.

The higher-density residential, mixed-use, and other areas of the city will distinguish between transit-oriented areas, near Metro, high-frequency bus or streetcar lines, and areas without good transit access. While it's probably unnecessary to require it in zoning, there's some argument that a store in a commercial area far from transit might need some parking.

But these parking minimums for non-residential uses in low- and moderate-density residential areas even will apply right next door to a Metro stop. A potential school just a block or two from Takoma, Potomac Ave, or Deanwood Metro will nonetheless need to build considerable parking. That's wrong.

Alley lots

Residences in alleys are a big part of DC's history. African-Americans came to live in many DC alleys after the Civil War, and a number of alley residences remain. While the ones in the late 19th Century weren't the most sanitary or well-built, there's no reason modern ones can't be perfectly safe and habitable.

Current rules allow alley dwellings as long as the alley lot is 400 square feet or greater, it has adequate plumbing and so on, and the alleys serving it are particularly wide, at least 30 feet. The new code removes the 30-foot alley rule, but any alley unit will still have to get a special exception and satisfy DC agencies on fire safety, traffic, waste and more.

If the fire department doesn't think it can put out a fire in an alley dwelling, it shouldn't go in, but if one satisfies them, DDOT, DPW and the others, an arbitrary alley width shouldn't be the obstacle.

Green Area Ratio

A 21st-century change creates a new "Green Area Ratio" for large buildings. Projects which have a GAR requirement must include a certain as a percentage of the lot area. Grassy space, green roofs, water features, trees, and other sustainability elements each give a certain number of points based on their size, and the sum of all of those must equal a set fraction of the lot's size.

Parking lots, in particular, also have landscaping requirements, mandating a certain number and size of trees and grassy areas to ensure that parking lots have shade, don't form urban heat islands, and can handle some stormwater runoff.

This version is still just a draft. OP will make changes from comments by residents including a citizen task force, hold more public meetings, make more changes, and finally move to formal public hearings before the Zoning Commission. You can send OP your comments here.

Opponents of these changes are organizing groups to attend tomorrow's oversight hearing, which starts at 10 am. If you want to speak, email aphelps@dccouncil.us to sign up, or you can watch the fireworks online.

Lydia DePillis was also at the meeting and focused her article on the above-ground issues, including the opposition and the economic loss to the city from further restricting already-constrained development. She quotes Korns saying, "We're building more vacant parking spaces, because we don't want to listen to people complain about parking."

Afterward, Korns said that at the nearby Hamilton House, on New Hampshire Avenue near N Street, there are 77 parking spaces but only about 55 are rented out at any time. The Chastleton, at 16th and R and managed by Keener-Squire, has 300 units but only 69 spaces; despite this low ratio, they aren't in high demand.

A new 46-unit condo Keener-Squire constructed at 24th and I had only 4 dedicated spaces for 46 units, and sold out quickly even in a bad real estate market, Korns added. But the parking spaces didn't: only 2 of the 4 sold.

Keener-Squire will probably be able to rent out the remaining parking spaces to office workers or residents in the area. But they likely won't make back their investment. Korns said they consider the extra parking just an expense they have to bear. That's too bad, since the funding from the project will help the the First Baptist Church fund repairs and programs. The project also would benefit from more affordable housing than the 8% mandated by inclusionary zoning. Unnecessary parking costs detract from both of these.

The extra spaces will also surely draw some additional traffic. That's one of several concerns voiced by residents of an adjacent condominium. At the meeting, however, the complaints seemed more to be the urban equivalent of "get off my lawn, young whippersnappers": fears that residents will party on the roof, that some of them might be students, and that renters don't care about the community as much (a comment which made ANC Commissioner Kevin O'Connor, himself a renter, jump in with a sharp rebuke).

Relevant policy-makers in DC already decided to lower minimums. The Zoning Commission, which combines mayoral appointees and federal representatives, approved the general concept back in October 2008. That was one of the first pieces of the zoning rewrite, and others have followed since. But the changes won't actually become law until the final language for the entire new zoning code is written and approved.

This fall, the DC Office of Planning hopes to roll out its draft of the new code, which will likely spark a new round of debates leading up to final approval. The longer the process takes, the more buildings will be constructed under antiquated 1958 zoning rules such as this one, which force property owners to dig costly 3rd levels below ground even when they are confident their residents won't need the parking spaces.

The property is currently split between two zones. The portion of the lot facing 17th Street, NW is zoned to allow 90-foot buildings. The remainder of the lot is zoned for 65- 70-foot buildings. The project will need a zoning variance in order to build to the 90-foot limit allowed for buildings on 17th Street. Even with that variance, the proposal only calls for half the density permitted by zoning.

Most of the surrounding buildings are around 90 feet tall, so this proposal fits nicely with the established neighborhood scale. The building design by architecture firm Eric Colbert and Associates has already been approved by the Dupont Circle Conservancy and garnered positive reactions from members of the ANC. Commissioner Mike Silverstein commented that the project's design fits nicely with the modern architecture of other nearby buildings.

Although it does not appear to be their main concern, project opponents have seized upon the height variance issue in order to stop the project as proposed.

Some residents who attended this month's ANC meeting were vocal in their opposition to the scope of the project. Fliers were distributed to meeting attendees that warned of noise, trash, and parking issues. Opponents' main concern seems to be that this development could become a "dorm" for undergraduate students and young people.

While it is true that the proposed building will consist of one-bedroom and efficiency units, 8% of which will be set aside as affordable housing, there is little chance the building will become a dorm. Property management company Keener-Squire reports that of the over 1,100 similar units they manage in the Dupont and Logan Circle neighborhoods, only about 2% are occupied by undergraduate students.

Johns Hopkins University does maintain a campus in an adjacent building, but it houses graduate programs attended primarily by part-time students who are unlikely to be living in the area specifically for school.

As for parking concerns, the new apartments will be located in one of the most walkable and transit-accessible areas of the city, mere blocks away from retail and the Metro. It is likely that few residents of the building will actually own a car. Regardless, the church will construct 93 underground parking spaces, 36 to replace those lost from the current lot plus 57 additional new spaces to comply with zoning requirements.

The most controversial issue may be a proposed rooftop common area. Residents are concerned about the noise a rooftop common might generate. This is a reasonable concern, but similar amenities have become a fairly common element of DC residential buildings, and there seems to be no particular reason why this specific rooftop deck should be disallowed.

Even so, both the developer and architect have said that they are willing to make changes to the rooftop area in order to abate as much noise as possible. The current design is partially enclosed, so perhaps there is opportunity to enclose more.

The full Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission has delayed a final vote on this proposal until after a special meeting of the Zoning, Preservation, and Development Committee to discuss the project. That meeting will take place at 7 pm on Tuesday, September 6, at the Hotel Dupont.

Correction: The article originally said the zoning provides for 65-foot buildings. However, while this is true for the basic zoning, the Inclusionary Zoning law increases the maximum height to 70 feet.

Projects like the Aldi in Carver-Langston or the Van Ness Walgreens (later changed) will keep getting proposed while the zoning rewrite is underway. Developers will design a project the way zoning requires, but in the absence of guidance, they'll just fall back on the standard suburban models. These projects will last for 50 years, so the least we can ask is that the developer put the parking behind the buildings.

To submit comments, fax or emailed a signed PDF of not more than 10 pages to zcsubmissions@dc.gov by 3 pm today.

The Green Area Ratio (PDF), the subject of tonight's hearing, incorporates a standard of environmental sustainability into development. New development or large-scale renovations for buildings will have to meet a GAR standard, except for single-family homes, 2-unit condos/apartments, or accessory dwellings .

The proposed text sets scores for different kinds of landscaping and stormwater management. Trees count for a certain number of square feet depending on their size. Landscaped areas count for 30-60% of their size depending on the depth of their soil, permeable pavers about 40-50%, green roofs 60-80%. That score is then divided by the total size of the lot to generate a GAR.

The actual GAR each property will have to achieve has yet to be determined, and the Office of Planning will propose specific thresholds as they write zoning text for each individual type of zone.

Implementing the GAR will cost some money, though statistics from a similar program in Seattle showed that it added only ½% to 1% to the total cost of the project. In addition, buildings have to pay impervious surface fees from the District Department of the Environment and DC Water, and higher GAR will directly lower those payments. GAR features on buildings will also help DC reach its EPA-mandated stormwater quality goals, improve air quality, and reduce air conditioning costs.

OP estimated the current GAR of properties in DC. For commercial zones, the GAR today falls between .2 and .3, with industrial zones a little lower, moderate density residential between .3 and .4, and lower density residential zones higher due to their lower lot coverage.

The Zoning Commission asked OP to estimate what GAR requirements it might set for a zone. OPS ran the analysis for Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) zones, which are designated C-M for Commercial and Manufacturing or just M for Manufacturing in the old zoning code. PDR zones average .137, the lowest category in DC.

Each 0.1 of GAR would add about $1.50 per square foot to projects. OP would recommend a starting GAR requirement of 0.2, with the opportunity to reevaluate raising the threshold in the future. This would add less than 1% to the construction costs of new projects.

The hearing is tonight, 6:30 pm at 441 4th Street, NW (One Judiciary Square), room 220-South. Typically in these hearings, OP presents first, then the Zoning Commission asks questions, and finally public witnesses can speak, first witnesses in support and then those opposed. Fill out two of the little witness cards that are on the table next to the far right door while you wait.

The streetcar has widespread public support, and despite being a midday meeting, the tenor of the hearing will send a strong signal to Chairman and Mayor-Elect Vince Gray as he makes tough budget decisions. You don't need to say anything profound or fact-laden; just say why you want the streetcar built. To get on the list, contact April Hawkins-Mason by at ahawkinsmason@dccouncil.us or 202-724-8195 no later than Monday at 5.

The other place we need a strong turnout is for the parking zoning hearing. The Office of Planning and DDOT have worked hard to find reasonable parking regulations that still respect businesses' and residents' desires, but also to remove the dangerous incentives in zoning to build too much parking and lock newly developed areas into excessive car-dependence.

You can say whatever you want, but I'm going to say I encourage the Zoning Commission to support the recommendation and choose DDOT's revised proposal for maximums, which lies between their original suggestion and OP's. That hearing is 6:30 pm Monday at 441 4th Street, NW (One Judiciary Square), 2nd floor. To sign up to testify, call 202-727-6311.

Tomorrow are two meetings on transportation east of the river. At 10 am is a meeting for the Far Northeast Livability Study, one of DDOT's projects around the city to examine streets in a multimodal way and improve performance and safety for all modes. This one encompasses the part of Ward 7 north of East Capitol Street and takes place at Kelly Miller Middle School, 301 49th Street, NE.

Then at 1, DDOT will hold the second of its two Circulator meetings, where it will talk to residents about the Circulator expansion study. That will occur at the Benning Library, 3935 Benning Rd, NE.

In DC's northern section, the second community meeting on revitalizing upper 14th (north of Spring Road) is Wednesday, November 17, 6:30-8 pm at Kingsbury Day School, 5000 14th Street, NW in the Great Room.

If you live west of both rivers, don't feel left out. There are meetings on plans in Arlington and Falls Church involving parking, streetcars, and buses too.

Arlington is holding two open houses on the East Falls Church Area Plan. This plan was the result of years of staff and task force input, and was officially presented to the Arlington County Board back in July 2010.

The board asked staff to address some specific points and seek community input and then return for final approval. How much parking to build, and how much to design the area around walking (as Arlington wants) versus automobility (as VDOT wants), are some of the key questions.

The open houses are Monday, November 15, 7 pm at Tuckahoe Elementary School, 6550 North 26th Street in the Multi-Purpose Room, and Saturday, November 20, 1 pm at Resurrection Evangelical Lutheran Church, 6201 Washington Boulevard in the Parish Hall.

If you'd rather talk streetcars, there are also two public meetings on the Columbia Pike streetcar. One is also Monday, November 15, 7 pm at Goodwin House at Bailey's Crossroads, 3440 S. Jefferson Street, Falls Church in the auditorium. The other is Thursday, November 18, 7 pm at Walter Reed Community Center, 2909 16th Street S., Arlington in the Multipurpose Room.

Then there's buses. WMATA is studying improvements to the 23A/C (McLean-Crystal City) and 25A/C/D (Ballston-Bradlee-Pentagon) lines. The next public meeting is 6:30-8:30 pm at Shirlington Public Library, 4200 Campbell Avenue in Arlington.

Finally, NCPC is starting the process to update the federal part of the Comprehensive Plan, which influences federal land use choices and transportation options for federal workers. The first part to discuss is transportation, and NCPC is holding a public forum Tuesday, 5:30-7:30 pm at their offices, 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500. We'll also be having a live chat with NCPC planners at noon on Tuesday, so stay tuned.

Parking minimums would disappear in most cases. In neighborhood commercial corridors or low-density residential areas without good transit, commercial, institutional, or multi-family residential buildings would still need to provide some parking. But any area with good transit service, or high-density areas, would have no requirements.

For bicycle parking, new buildings over a certain size would have to include some outdoor visitor bicycle parking (like bike racks), and for non-residential buildings, also a certain amount of indoor, secure bicycle parking along with shower facilities. Access to parking and showers is one of the most significant obstacles to people being able to choose to bike to work.

The parking location proposal would disallow parking between buildings and a street, such as in strip malls like the H Street Connection. This would have ensured that Walgreens designed the somewhat more pedestrian-oriented store they ultimately built at Van Ness instead of the very suburban style one they originally pushed for.

Surface parking lots would need to have 10% of the lot landscaped and trees that at maturity would cover 30% of the lot in tree canopy.

The requirements will also serve to limit on-street loading zones and require more off-street loading docks and berths, while ensuring minimal impacts on urban design, public space, and the pedestrian environment. This will be a boon for all users of the street, including automobile drivers, cyclists, and transit riders, as trucks parked on the street cause congestion, block bicycle lanes, and negatively impact the efficiency of bus routes.

Currently, there is no upper limit to the amount of parking that can be built in either surface lots or parking garages in the city. The Office of Planning and DDOT have both recommended setting a maximum for the amount of parking that could be included with a new building or development.

OP's original recommendation was more conservative, setting the following limits:

• 100,000 square feet of land area
  
• 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
  
• A total of 1,000 spaces for any single parking facility
  
• There could be lower limits in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas, based on DDOT input

DDOT recommended more stringent maxima, and a separate standard for TOD and non-TOD areas.

• 100,000 square feet of land area
  
• For retail uses, 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area in TOD areas, and 4.5 spaces in non-TOD areas
  
• For non-retail uses, 1 space per 1,000 square feet in TOD areas, 3 in non-TOD areas
  
• A total of 500 spaces in TOD areas, 750 in non-TOD areas
  

In either option, the Board of Zoning Adjustment would have the latitude to increase caps under the relatively light special exception rules.

As an example, DDOT took a look at planned development in the NoMa neighborhood. They found that, at full build-out, 20 million square feet of development is expected. There are currently 7,400 parking spaces in the neighborhood, and 16,500 would be expected under current plans.

This could potentially lead to 12,000 new trips during peak hours. The street network would be unable to handle the additional traffic. Streets in adjacent neighborhoods would see increased use due to spillover, and arterial roads leading to the neighborhood, such as New York Avenue, would see significant increases in delays due to demand.

Since we can't widen the streets and won't be building freeways through the neighborhood, the city needs to find ways to encourage less automobile traffic and more utilization of the investments we've made in transit.

DC USA, the oft-cited example of building too much parking, is only 15 spaces too much for the less stringent OP standard, though twice as big as allowed under the DDOT proposal. Except for that total cap, at 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, it comes in well within the parking ratios in both, meaning that a shopping center half the size of DC USA with just under half as much parking would still be permissible.

Meanwhile, the 9-acre, 860-space Home Depot and Giant parking lot near Rhode Island Avenue Metro would far exceed the 100,000 square foot land area limit, but has neither too many spaces in total nor too many compared to the building size for the OP standard. It would exceed both under DDOT's standard for a TOD area, but not the per square foot limit and not the total by much if it had been built in a non-TOD area. Worth noting, also, is the proposed shopping center at New York Avenue and South Dakota Avenue NE that would have over 3,000 parking spaces.

Please set aside time on next Monday evening to head down to Judiciary Square and testify in favor of parking regulations that will help shape a better and greater Washington, DC in the years to come. The hearing begins at 6:30 pm in Suite 220 at One Judiciary Square (441 4th Street NW). Call ahead (202-727-6311) to get on the list and say you are a "proponent" of the parking regulations, Case No. 08-06. You can also sign up to testify if you arrive on time to the Zoning Commission hearing room.

If you can't make it to the hearing, you can submit comments to the Zoning Commission by fax or email. You can email comments, but only if you sign your comments and send as a PDF of not more than 10 pages. Email your signed PDF to: zcsubmissions@dc.gov. Written testimony must be received on or before November 15th.