Parking reduction plan advances
Fairfax County is preparing to make major changes to the zoning ordinance to greatly cut back the requirements for parking at new developments.
At a Planning Commission work session on June 22, county zoning staff briefed the commissioners on the complex Parking Reimagined proposal that reduces the number of parking spaces for multifamily housing, office buildings, retail, and other developments.
Parking Reimagined
The goal, according to the Department of Planning and Development, is to stop allowing large underutilized parking lots and instead make communities more walkable.
While planning staff say Parking Reimagined would reduce vehicle trips and create greener communities, critics charge it’s a giveaway to developers and would have unintended consequences, such as overflow parking in single-family neighborhoods.
The Planning Department is hosting a virtual Parking Reimagined Open House for the public on June 29 at 7 p.m. Access the meeting here.
At the work session, the commissions had lots of questions but no one questioned the need to implement Parking Reimagined.
Related story: Parking Reimagined would benefit developers, not residents
Planning Commission Chair Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner (Providence) asked at-large Commissioner Andres Jimenez to draft a formal motion on Parking Reimagined by July 17 to be considered at the Planning Commission’s July 27 hearing. [Jimenez recently won the Democratic Primary for Mason District supervisor.]
At the hearing, Niedzielski-Eichner said the commission will defer a decision on the motion until after its August recess, but will act on it before the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing on Parking Reimagined on Sept. 26.
Shrinking parking lots
For multifamily housing, the current requirement is 1.6 parking spaces per unit. Parking Reimagined would set a base rate of 1.3 spaces per unit. That would be reduced further to 1.17 in suburban centers and 1.04 spaces (80 percent of the base rate) in revitalization districts, such as Annandale and Bailey’s Crossroads/Seven Corners.
The parking rate for multifamily housing in transit station areas (TSAs) and transit-oriented development (TODs), would be 0.4 spaces per bedroom.
The current rate of 2.7 spaces per unit in townhouse developments would remain. New language would require the 2.7 spaces to include 0.2 spaces per unit on common property for visitors.
Related story: Viewpoint: There are many problems with Parking Reimagined
A shopping center with 100,000 to 800,000 square feet would have 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet (down from 4-4.8), and a larger shopping center would have 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Parking rates for office buildings would have 3 spaces (down from 3.6) per 1,000 square feet for buildings with 50,000 square feet or less. Buildings with more than 50,000 square feet would have 2 spaces (down from 2.6) per 1,000 square feet. Under the current ordinance, there are separate rates for each tenant.
Retail in general would have 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Parking for restaurants would be reduced from 10-11 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet to eight spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The zoning ordinance on parking covers every type of use – from childcare centers to data centers, breweries to pawnshops, and much more.
Parking Reimagined also reduces the space needed for loading docks but adds a requirement for a dedicated parking space near the entrance of multifamily housing for delivery vehicles.
Parking Reimagined does not reduce the parking requirements for single-family detached communities. It also doesn’t require parking reductions in the current built environment – but it could affect an existing development if the owner seeks rezoning for a new use.
County staff made some changes to the Parking Reimagined proposal in response to concerns from community members. One change defines and limits the authority of the director of Land Development Services to approve parking adjustments.
Another change increases the minimum requirements for bicycle parking. For example, a multifamily development would have to provide 10 percent – up from 5 percent – of the required parking for vehicles.
Heat islands
At the work session, Jimenez said the goal of Parking Reimagined to increase the amount of green space “is a real step in the right direction.”
Niedzielski-Eichner asked staff what can be done to incentive developers to provide more open space in return for reductions in parking. The response – “It’s not a tradeoff. When you right size parking, you provide more flexibility for development.”
Commissioner Mary Cortina (Braddock) said overly large parking lots that never fill up are not only wasteful but add to the heat island effect in developed areas. For example, she noted that most of the time, no more than a third of the more than 300 parking spaces at the Annandale Giant are occupied.
According to Cortina, the temperature in the middle of that lot has been measured at 140 degrees, making it 65 degrees hotter than a green area.
Leslie Johnson, director of the Zoning Administration Division, said a related ordinance change would address the heat island issue by increasing the amount of landscaping in parking lots from 5 to 10 percent.
Cortina suggested the reductions in Parking Reimagined could be reduced even further. With so many people working from home now, offices don’t need as much parking as proposed, she said. Also reducing the requirements even further for retail could make the difference in whether a small business can afford to open.
13 responses to “Parking reduction plan advances”
Leave a reply
Do the County wackadoodles realize that many of us can’t walk or bike everywhere we must go? If I cannot park where I usually shop, I’ll go elsewhere.
Why is every zoning change in Fairfax County a gift to developers, with no care for taxpayers?
WUSA9 did a story on the heat island in Annandale 2 summers ago:
https://www.wusa9.com/article/weather/heat-islands-northern-virginia-measuring-temperatures-annandale/65-56f108b0-3cd1-43e5-8aad-308f51ea888a#:~:text=ANNANDALE%2C%20Va.,were%20less%20than%2085%20degrees
The latest revisions for residential multi-story residential minimum parking requirements have gone from totally ridiculous to unacceptably unrealistic given the environment we live in today and for the foreseeable future. The fundamental flaw remains the failure to establish what “right-sized” parking needs are currently. The proposed reductions are ideologically driven, not fact based. Staff should be required to study specific areas like Annandale before comimg up with arbitrary reductions of 35% when overflow parking is a predictable consequence of drastic changes to current requirements. It is also dangerous to draw conclusions based on one example like the Giant parking lot. A lot of other parking lots are fully utilized, so the questions that should be asked are whether Giant is providing more spaces than the minimum zoning requirement and whether a surplus for a grocery use has any relevance for parking for other uses such as restaurants that seem to be associated now with inadequate parking at some Annandale locations. Nobody in county government appears to be asking the right questions, so Parking Reimagined has all the warning signs of bad regulatory decisionmaking. Miscalculations cannot be fixed after the fact. Many of the arguments staff offered to the Planning Commissioners do not pass the laugh test. Hopefully our elected representatives will wake up and send this back to the drawing board or, at a minimum, require a developer to provide realistic on-site parking spaces for multi-story residential projects based on legal occupancy for a residential unit and an allocation for visitor use. There is no rational basis for vastly different regulations for townhouse versus multistory residents. Apartment and condo dwellers use personal vehicles to the same or even greater extent as single family and townhouse dwellers. The disparity in treatment implies they are second class citizens who do not deserve equitable treatment. To repeat the obvious flaws: there is no requirement for green space, or affordable housing, and no requirement for infrastructure improvements. All the claims of environmental benefits, increased walkability, and “equity” are smoke screens for changes that benefit developers and impose costs on residents– as inequitable a result as can be “imagined.”
Stupid and greedy
Thank goodness. A sea of surface parking is not only aesthetically dreadful, but also environmentally reckless because it enhances flash flooding and urban heat islands. Moreover, it encourages the use of motor vehicles, while undermining density and walkability. It also encumbers land that could be used for better development. Demand public transit and dense, mixed use development, not parking spaces/lots.
I have to agree. So they think that a good example of an underutilized lot is the Giant in Annandale and that justifies the plan? That lot is underutilized because that Giant doesn’t see as many customers as other lots. Perhaps, look at the Pinecrest shopping center or the Home Depot lot on 236. The lots are always full with very little available parking. Andres has been directed to draft a formal motion. If his attendance record is to be believed, will he even show up to submit the formal motion? Want to help the environment, perhaps they should focus on the bamboo that is all over Columbia Pike on the dam side of road that the supervisors made illegal but then conveniently ignore the overgrowth.
Actually, County staff is recommending a lower number of parking spaces for townhouses in the Tier Framework (Revitalization Districts, Transit Station Areas and Transit Oriented Developments). Look on pages 15, 16 and 17 of the June 2023 draft for Parking Reimagined, which is located on their webpage. County staff is recommending 1.8 spaces for townhouses in Revitalization Districts, such as Annandale, with .3 spaces located on common property for visitor parking. The range that is being advertised for townhouses in Revitalization Districts, from which Supervisors can choose for approval, is from 1 space to 2.7 spaces, with .3 spaces located on common property. Let’s hope that the Board of Supervisors show some sense and do not approve what County staff is recommending. Let’s hope that Supervisors approve the highest number of spaces in the range, for both townhouses and multifamily dwelling units. Annandale does not have reliable mass transit and residents need to rely on their vehicles at this point in time.
County staff should have to live in Fairfax County. If they are going to make asinine rules that affect us, it should affect them as well. Maybe then they would realize that townhomes and condo units need 2 parking places per residence. Most residents of those properties are 2 income families, and those employees work in places where a car is required to commute. If you want to decrease the number of parking spaces in retail locations, fine. But DON’T reduce the parking spaces required in townhome and condo unit areas.
Remember that a lot of you keep voting for these Supervisors who care more about developers and their own way of thinking than they do their constituents. Next time you go to a Supervisors meeting, ask them how many of them biked or walked to the meeting. How many of them took public transportation? My guess is none of them did. These rules are for us, there is plenty of parking for them.
Parking minimums should be removed completely like other areas did to allow buildings the freedom to be built with more amenities and less subsides for car parking. Also we need more small and local businesses and parking is a burden on these businesses.
We need less cars in Fairfax for health reasons as well
Also drivers killed a lot of pedestrians last year and it’s increasing year after year
It seems to me that in our cities parking spots are separated by tree islands. In addition there is porous material that helps eliminate run off. Over the years I’ve sent ideas to Penny gross but never received a reply.
Townhouses already don’t have enough parking spots for residents, much less guests. People buying lots of groceries or with young children in tow pretty much have to go by car.
How about sheltering parking lots with solar panel canopies? Create shade, shelter from rain and generate electricity at the same time. How about mandating green roofs instead? Or how about more permeable paving, or painting parking lot surfaces white? How about green walls?
I know it’s expensive to build parking structures vs. lots, but building up leaves more space for greenery. If need be, charge to park in an above- or underground garage. People on food stamps could receive parking vouchers.
If all the residential and commercial building slated goes ahead as planned, there won’t be any free parking spaces left in Annandale in the Giant lot or elsewhere. And let’s not forget we are missing the patrons of the Bon Chon which burned, but the space will be occupied in the future and need parking for patrons.
This is a sop to developers just like eliminating sidewalks to create a “country feel.” It’s B.S.— they just didn’t want to pay for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Now we have unwalkable streets and are paying to retrofit them with sidewalks.
When did they not want to pay for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. You must be out of your mind if you think that defending insanely high parking lots minimums is going to lead to walkability like the reduction is actually going to do. They are going to increase the townhomes but everything else the reductions are desperately needed. Parking should not be made to meet the top demand because its impossible to account it for all the time also the solutions you propose are good solutions but pretending that we can do this for the huge swathes of parking lots that Annnandale and the county does is impossible, these businesses are already paying so much per lot and they have no reason to, the lots are highly inhospitable to pedestrians and take so much land for development and walking and biking areas.