County to reduce parking requirements
Fairfax County is undergoing a major effort to ease parking requirements for new developments.
The Parking Reimagined initiative is aimed at reducing the number of parking spaces required in multifamily housing developments and businesses.
The goal is to increase green space, spur development and economic growth, reduce disincentives for building affordable housing, and discourage driving.
Parking Reimagined is based on the idea that urban areas and areas close to transit have less of a need for big parking lots. So the higher the density, the less parking would be required.
The third virtual open house on Parking Reimagined is scheduled for Aug. 27, 10:30 a.m.-noon. The meeting can be accessed on Zoom here.
Public hearings are expected to be held in winter 2022-23 and spring 2023.
Multifamily parking
Under existing parking regulations, suburban townhouse developments must provide 2.7 spaces per unit with one of those spaces conveniently accessible to the street.
Parking Reimagined calls for two spaces per townhouse unit in higher-density areas, including one space with convenient access to the street and 0.7 spaces per unit for visitors or for shared use.
For multifamily housing, current rules require 1.6 parking spaces per unit.
Parking Reimagined would reduce this to 1.3 spaces per unit. Staff is also considering up to 1.6 spaces per unit depending on location and the number of bedrooms.
For restaurants with a gross floor area (GFA) of less than 5,000 square feet, the current regulation requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outside seating area in excess of 20 outdoor seats.
Restaurants larger than 5,000 square feet are currently required to have 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 11 spaces per 1,000 square feet of outside seating area in excess of 32 outdoor seats.
Parking Reimagined would reduce the number of required spaces for restaurants to nine spaces per 1,000 square feet and nine spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor seating area in excess of 1,000 square feet.
Less parking for retailers
Current rules for retailers require one space per 200 square feet of the first 1,000 square feet plus six spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of GFA. Since that regulation was adopted in 1978, there have been significant changes in retail, such as the growth of online shopping.
The proposed rules in Parking Reimagined would set a base rate of four spaces per 1,000 square feet for retailers.
Proposed parking rates for retailers would differ according to location:
- Suburban center – 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
- Revitalization area – 3.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
- Transit station area – 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
- Transit-oriented development area – 2.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
- The Planned Tysons Corner Urban District – no minimum requirement.
Office parking cut back
The existing parking rate for offices, which was last updated in 1988, requires 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a building with 5,000 square feet of GFA or less, three spaces per 1,000 square feet for a building between 5,000 and 125,000 square feet, and 2.6 spaces for a building greater than 125,000 square feet of GFA.
Parking Reimagined would require three spaces per 1,000 square feet for buildings with 5,000 square feet of GFA or less and 2.5 spaces for buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of GFA.
The current rate for warehouses is one space per 1.5 employees plus one space per company vehicle, plus sufficient spaces to accommodate the largest number of visitors anticipated to be on site at any one time but with a minimum of one space per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
Parking Reimagined would require one space per 1,000 square feet for a warehouse or one space per employee on a major shift, whichever is less.
24 responses to “County to reduce parking requirements”
Leave a reply
Wait, don’t tell me, this brilliant idea came from the woman who never owned a car in her life?
More green space and more development? I think the idea will increase development and taxes. I doubt there will be much green space!
Oh, no, they don’t want “more green space” included with this. This is a gift to make development cheaper for the profiteers. They will promise an “add on” or “stand alone” green space policy but they want this solely for reducing parking as an incentive to developers. This county has given up on “green space” and the “planners” want to make suburbia disappear. They think that their stormwater efforts are all they need to do on the environment and their focus is only on energy efficiency. They don’t get the value of trees — particularly carbon capture. This could be part of a proffer but needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. In Annandale we have 12 acre empty parking lots and residents struggle to park in some areas. We do need to reimagine parking but not like this… it will not work everywhere and should not be a county policy.
Residents have been trying to get the County to commit to increasing green space as part of the parking reimagined amendment to the zoning ordinance and so far the County has refused. So when they say reducing parking will result in additional green space, this is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Under the current criteria for parking reimagined, if a developer wants to voluntarily add more green space he can do it, but I’m not holding my breath. The amendment should be written to require that a certain percentage of the reduction in parking requirements should be required to be green space.
Unless carefully defined green space is mandated in the requirements, this is going to backfire. Otherwise, you are giving the developers license for extra-extra density, with the pipe dream wish that they will opt for trees over increased structure.
How should the green formula work? On a case-by-case survey that will involve an ecological impact study, which will always be an unwelcome expense and unwelcome answer for the developers to pay for.
Other than that, good plan!
This is insane. Many townhomes have 2, 3 or even 4 drivers living in them, especially with young adults living with parents for extended periods while they get degrees and build income so they can afford to live on their own. As it is you can’t find parking at night, can barely find parking in popular smaller shopping centers, and can’t find convenient street parking. Also can’t afford to waste hours on crowded public buses and Metro trying to cobble together a safe path from point A to B via C, K and Q, hauling groceries, lumber and whatever. Letting developers squeeze out more profit by forcing the costs of cumbersome transportation and parking shortages onto homeowners and renters is mean-spirited and unrealistic. I tried living in DC – it didn’t work and that was before I had kids. Extending DC parking issues into suburban sprawl is a recipe for disaster. We’ll all be moving, along with our higher incomes, to more open locations and leave those who can’t afford to move behind in the increasingly cramped cesspool that this area has been rapidly turning into.
The idea is that you’re not supposed to own a car anymore. You are supposed to get from your house to work, shop, school, whatever, by some other means. Parking will be deliberately difficult and totally unreliable. You are making bad decisions by trying to live or go to these areas using cars. You’re supposed to get an Uber for everything. Or else walk or bicycle (never mind the weather or your health). Your life will be better — there will be a smidge more shrubs along the way to enjoy — and it will be better for the planet. If you have a lot of people crammed into your condo, that’s your fault. On average, one of you will have the use of a car. You are not out in the country and you are not a millionaire. Perhaps should reconsider your life/style choices. (Now, is what I am saying reasonable? Me, I would not dare to answer for anyone! But I do like to hear opinions…)
All in the name of equity, which is the first reason given for these changes in the parking reimagined white paper, which is part of One Fairfax, which is funded by outside entities. Yes, I agree the point is to disincentivize people from owning cars. But I don’t think the reason for that is to save the planet. I think the reason is to make money.
https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/10/08/liberal-network-racial-equity-policies
Yes – concur – this development initiative amplifies cost and inconvenience associated with (and in order to discourage) private transport while increasing population density. There are many green spaces in Fairfax, most of which the county had no role in creating, so their offer here is not enticing. Once enough folks are fed up with the increased density of persons and commerce, and increased cost of private transport, then we will hear more proposals for dedicated bus lanes or perhaps a light rail system:) Private transport is a luxury according to our leaders, which many or most people are not able to afford under these types of plans. We should demand a higher standard for green spaces coming out of these proposals – more than a row of shrubs along the sidewalk.
High density buildings and high traffic developments need better parking solutions not less parking. Limiting the amount of parking to encourage customers and residents to no longer use cars is hog wash. If it were simple to live in this area without a car more people would. Less parking at these high density projects always overburdens local streets and infrastructure. The county needs to encourage developers to provide ample parking and multi storied parking structures. It is more expensive, but if you can’t afford to plan and develop property to efficient community standards then get into another business! Mosaic is example of good parking planning. I rarely have a problem finding parking at Mosaic.
When the existing parking regs were set in stone, FC was very car-centric, suburban sprawl. Things were very spread out with lots of green space between. No question, ours is a car-centric culture, still. Traffic has long been a nightmare, and the only real solution up to now has been widening lanes, which eats up more terrain and makes more people stuck living next to highways that are miserably hot, loud, uncrossable and unwalkable. Meantime, I have yet to see the parking lots at malls, shopping centers, office parks, libraries, or small businesses near me anywhere close to filled up, and I live inside the beltway near Rte 50, next to commercial. That they want to adjust parking reqs for projects such as office/retail/mixed use is fine with me. It’s a reality that people are working and shopping from home as much as by driving to somewhere else. Parking Reimagined might allow the county some leverage with developers, i.e., to insist on more middle-income and affordable housing in our area. What I object to and wish to raise with all the supervisors is the temptation to simply swap out impervious surfaces (parking lots) with… MORE impervious surfaces (more roofs, hardscape, high-density buildings). That just leads to heat islands, more runoff, etc. I think it would make better urban planning to tie the reduction in parking to something that everyone also needs – more parks, and sidewalks that are safe to walk/bike to. Think of the need for that at Seven Corners, Bailey’s Xroads, Annandale…
The heat islands are terrible. I’m from California. Most malls, downtown areas and parking lots out there (near the coast at least) have trees!! The shade makes the experience of walking around bearable if not enjoyable. In ffx everywhere I walk, I’m in this heat vortex with sunlight bouncing off the pavement. It makes my eyes rain.
They do not plan for more green space, just fewer parking spaces. Who does this benefit? Developers. County staff is clearly disingenuous. They are trying to sell a bad idea with a false promise. I lived in a townhouse development years ago. We did not have enough parking. I would often find cars in my reserved space. My guests had nowhere to park. Despite staff’s misinformation, multifamily buildings suffer from lack of parking. People drive because they want to, and being in a transit area does not reduce their desire to own and drive cars. Tysons is proof of that. Plus, try to find a parking space at Tysons Corner Center between Thanksgiving and New Years. Did staff start this “mislead the public” campaign? I doubt it. It came from the worst Board of Supervisors we have ever had—one that prioritizes developers over their own constituents.
I can certainly relate to your townhouse experience. I used to live at Arbor Park of Alexandria and that place is the crown-jewel of NOVA residential parking nightmares. It was absolutely insane. If you would arrive home any time after 10 pm the lot was literally about 99.5% full. Far too often I would have to drive around for 15-20 minutes looking for a spot just to get to my own house.
But I would say that people drive because there is no adequate alternative, not simply because they want to. These problems are created by lack of transportation infrastructure, not a lack of parking spaces. Being in a “transit area” is a misnomer, because our “transit” is virtually nonexistent.
Build rapid transit in Fairfax County.
Elect a bunch of clowns who think they have good intentions and want to force everyone (but themselves) to do it. Then don’t complain. Go vote the clowns on the council out.
I’ve lived here for 10+ years and Fairfax county has only got worse at every level of county gov’t. This is another step toward stupidity given that even in the “more developed/ dense” areas there are multi-families (everything to include cousins) living together and already jammed parking (count the work trucks). If anything they need to increase the required number of parking spaces – but developers and county council will never live in those areas or allow it. Vote them OUT!
Oh my! I can’t remember the last time I laughed so hard reading the comments to a hard news article.
All these commenters on this site who want “corporations” and “government” to make sacrifices to fight man-made Global Warming/Climate Change…but when their local government takes concrete action to combat Climate Change by reducing the ability of residents of new developments to own cars, the whining and gnashing of teeth is so voluminous to be laughable.
Thanks to all the commenters on this article for helping me reach my weekly quota of laughs for a healthy balanced life.
It doesn’t sound as if you have a healthy balanced life to me. This is a joke — pure and simple. If you don’t think they are lying to you about the benefits you are fooling yourself. This is a profit-making venture for our elected officials (no, I did not elect them — but someone that does not have a healthy balanced life surely did).
Susie, would you be happy if the county took your car away?
Parking requirements are bad. The government should not mandate how much parking a business decides to have on their premises – if the owner of a business thinks they need parking, they can build parking, but the government should not force them to do so.
Here is a two minute video on why parking requirements are bad. https://youtu.be/uYPMmKrwgPc
In addition, I’ll leave the following quotes from a relevant article.
“Parking minimums are a house of cards,” said Donald Shoup, a UCLA professor and author of the definitive book on parking. “They’re all just copied from other cities’ parking requirements. Whenever I give a talk, I ask the local planners why any particular parking requirement isn’t higher or lower, and they cannot justify it. There is no science to parking requirements; it’s closer to astrology. The biggest reason they exist is to prevent complaints from people who think they have a right to park for free on the street.”
“Most minimum parking requirements are designed to satisfy the expected peak demand for parking. The problem with using peak demand to set the minimum amount of parking legally required is that so much space (and the land and money needed to provide that space) goes to waste. Supermarket parking lots, for example, are built to accommodate the holiday rushes. The rest of the year many suburban supermarket parking lots can be little more than an empty sea of asphalt.”
In Buffalo, New York — the first American city to eliminate parking minimums, on average, new developments were built with 17 percent less parking than under the requirements. Some developments even provided more parking than was previously mandated because builders knew many people still wanted to have a place to park. Such an outcome may surprise those scared to remove minimum parking requirements but not Shoup: “It’s foolish to think developers that want to make money would suddenly build all their new buildings without any parking.”
“Donald Shoup, a UCLA professor and author of the definitive book on parking” thinks everyone should pay for parking. So who is going to administer all of that? We are not a city that issues parking tags for residents, there is no one to administer that. We don’t have a meter system to pay for parking. Professor Shoup was talking about cities that have the infrastructure to deal with residential parking, Fairfax County does not. Professor Shoup barely made any sense at the virtual meeting and knows nothing about how huge Fairfax County is. It might work in some areas, but NOT all of them. This should not be a County policy but considered on a case by case basis.
County bureaucrats should not be determining the minimum amount of parking an establishment should have. The business owner should decide how much parking they think they need, based on the factors unique to their location. That’s it. That’s how this should be handled.
The county allowed a developer to build a 6 bedroom, 6,000 square foot house across the street from me, with only two parking spaces, with only one of those two spaces accessible to the street. So, at least residential parking requirements are damn near zero, no matter the size of the structure, you’ll be pleased to know. I am not so pleased, because I have to deal with the inevitable consequences, but hey, some planner who probably lives on a street with ample parking or easily accessible transit is happy.
County bureaucrats should not be determining the minimum amount of parking an establishment should have. The business owner should decide how much parking they think they need, based on the factors unique to their location. That’s it. That’s how this should be handled.
The “business owner” should determine how much parking they need. But the developers are not the business owners. They will offload the development for profit and the end users will be stuck with minimized parking under this proposal. Not having enough parking will limit what business choices are as well as potential residential developments. This should be handled on a case by case basis.