Viewpoint: There are many problems with Parking Reimagined
By Donna Jacobson
Fairfax County is proposing an amendment to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance that will reduce minimum parking requirements (MPRs) for new developments in residential and commercial areas.
The Planning Commission has tentatively scheduled a public hearing on the amendment, known as Parking Reimagined, on April 19. [Update, March 27: The April 19 public hearing has been canceled and might be deferred to sometime this summer.]
There are some benefits to the concept of reducing MPRs. Residents support reductions that are reasonable and add a net benefit to the environment. Parking Reimagined would not do that.
Residents have raised many issues about the proposed parking amendment during the past year at county work group sessions and virtual town halls. County planning staff have addressed some of these issues but many others remain.
Related story: Parking Reimagined would benefit developers, not residents
Here are the major concerns with Parking Reimagined:
- The amendment benefits developers and the county, but it does not improve the quality of life for residents and does not do enough for the environment.
- While many residents agree that MPRs should be reduced at developments near Metro stations, they do not support reducing MPRs in areas without easy access to Metro.
- The claim by county staff that MPRs can be reduced in areas with bus service – but no Metro station – is imprudent. Bus service in Fairfax County has been cut in the past for various reasons and could easily be cut in the future, leaving residents in these areas without transportation.
- Reducing MPRs in areas near Metro stations should be based on the proposed development’s distance from the Metro station. Surrounding jurisdictions have decreased MPRs within a half-mile of a Metro station. That is far more reasonable than reducing MPRs in the entire zoning designation, which is what Fairfax County is proposing.
- Many people are extremely concerned that the proposed parking rates for multifamily dwelling units are not sufficient to support the residents of those communities.
- Residents have not found meaningful analysis for the proposed MPRs on the Parking Reimagined website and do not think that they have received reasonable answers to their questions at the virtual community meetings.
- The amendment would give the director of Land Development Services the ability to issue reductions in MPRs through administrative action for up to 50 percent of the required parking. Such decisions should require a public hearing.
- Other countries have reduced MPRs to increase green spaces, reduce stormwater runoff, mitigate heat islands, and achieve other environmental benefits. Fairfax County’s proposed parking amendment would not require any additional green space, as they want to give developers flexibility. Developers would have the discretion to add green space, but would have no incentive to do so.
- County staff has stated that the parking amendment does not increase the floor area ratio (FAR) of a proposed development. However, it does allow developers to build out to the enlarged footprint resulting in a smaller parking lot. As a result, the county could be encouraging an increase in impervious surfaces without increasing density.
Even though there are potential benefits to reducing MPRs in certain areas, residents are worried that their questions concerning the issues stated above have not been adequately answered.
It’s especially concerning that the county does not have a viable plan, such as reducing MPRs in phases, in case their original assumptions are incorrect.
If the amendment is approved by the Board of Supervisors, Fairfax County residents will be forced to live with the changes in MPRs for years.
Any changes in MPRs need to be implemented in a fashion that ensures Fairfax County has the resources and ability to support the change. Most important, the MPRs need to be implemented in a way that any unforeseen negative consequences will not be borne by residents.
The Board of Supervisors is expected to decide at its March 21 meeting whether to advertise a public hearing on Parking Reimagined. If they agree, the Planning Commission would hold a hearing on April 19. The Board of Supervisors hearing would be June 6.
Residents can sign up to speak at the Planning Commission’s public hearing here. Testimony can be given in person, via telephone, or via video.
Concerns about Parking Reimagined can be emailed to the Planning Commission at [email protected] and to the Board of Supervisors at [email protected].
11 responses to “Viewpoint: There are many problems with Parking Reimagined”
Leave a reply
Most of us probably agree that reducing impermeable surfaces like parking areas is quite desirable for the environment, especially if such surfaces are converted to green spaces and/or tree planting; however the current Parking Reimagined proposal includes no such requirement for developers. I don’t understand why this is not a requirement for Parking Reimagined. While the BoS claims to support environmental conservation, their actions in case after case do not support their claims. For many years, the BoS has approved projects that help developers at the expense of residents, especially low & middle income residents, and the environment.
Case in point–Northern Virginia has the most data centers in the world by a huge margin (I believe the number is 70% percent!) and more are being proposed despite the opposition of residents who are directly affected by the air, water and noise pollution of these behemoths that have serious healthy consequences for residents and the environment. Surely there are ways to pursue needed development that limits negative environmental impact.
Exactly I fully agree, impervious structures like parking lots should be reduced as much as possible especially if they serve dense development which all most in all cases promotes pedestrian activity and landscaping, and green space. You shouldn’t oppose this because it’s “a handout to developers”. Push for green space, or bicycle stations. Defending more parking lots however is everything contrary to promoting green space and the environment
I joined the Parking Reimagined work group because I am in favor of decreasing excess parking. I am also on the Board of Directors for a local environmental group. Myself and the environmental groups in Fairfax County have been pushing for reductions in parking to lead to additional green spaces and tree canopies since January of 2022. Fairfax County has not been listening.
If we don’t require some additional green spaces and trees to replace the parking spaces, then we will not get a decrease in impervious surfaces. Buildings are also impervious surfaces, so if developers just replace parking spaces with buildings, we will not obtain a net benefit to the environment.
I realize that providing green spaces and tree canopy is expensive and I realize that developers need to make a profit and I don’t begrudge them that. However, they should also be required to
ensure that their developments provide an environmental benefit.
I hope that the Board of Supervisors decides to send this amendment back to the work group for more work. I think a compromise can still be reached that would new and renovated developments to be built in a way which reduces parking and adds green spaces and trees. The environmental groups in Fairfax County and myself both agree that we don’t think this amendment should be approved until this compromise is reached.
I will encourage everyone to read the entire parking amendment and to read the Environmental Quality Advisory Council’s report dated January 13, 2023, in which they do not recommend this parking amendment because they do not think it adds a net environmental benefit.
The 70% number is often mis-cited. In this case we should note that the majority of the data centers and data center sq footage is not in Fairfax, but rather in Loudoun and Prince William counties – though Fairfax is third with 3 million sq ft of data center use.
The 70% number came from a stat from someone some time ago about what percentage of the internet traffic ended up flowing through northern va at some point. That stat has been debated, but if it’s held at face value, it makes sense because amazon’s us-east region is hosted in northern va, as is microsoft azure’s east coast region. Both are the primary regions people deploy their services in when they set up services. When either of those go down, you notice it… netflix goes down as do other websites.
But that does not necessarily mean that northern va has 70% of the world’s data centers. There are less than 300 data centers in northern va. Google says there are around 8000 data centers in the world.
For a lot of the data in this post, info can be checked here: https://dgtlinfra.com/data-centers-virginia-ashburn-loudoun/
If ample parking isn’t part of new development, does that mean that overflow traffic parks on residential streets, and people have to park and walk to get home at night? Or are they proposing “parking tags” for the residential parking overflow and how will that get administered? Or does this mean more parking garages where residents have to pay to park? Any of these scenarios means the cost of this will burden residents. Since the Gartner doctrine was issued in 2015 this county has promoted rampant development–not just at metro, shut down expert voices on development in the Occoquan and eliminated stakeholders being at the table if they weren’t one of the beneficiaries. Throw the bums out!
I agree with Speaking for Trees. The Applicants at the West Falls Church Metro Station property want more than a 40% reduction in required parking for their multifamily buildings and a 50% reduction in loading/delivery spaces. That benefits no one but the developers.
Agree – there’s zero benefit to residents. Developers need to get some skin in the game and county needs to start charging fines for violations. For example: Any development in the past 30 years that contributes to run-off should be retroactively fined. Any new development that contributes to run off must pay a fee (annually adjusted for inflation) for the life of the development; and a sovereign fund established with the proceeds to fund a dredge of lake Accotink every 10 years. Also — charge parking fees at the lake; Add residential sticker for all neighborhoods surrounding the lake including N Springfield. And enforce the zoning and parking w all fines also contributing to the dredging. Bottom line – just saying no isn’t enough anymore. BoS and staff need to think about enforcement and a logical use for the funds generated.
I have carefully studied the proposed Parking Reimagined zoning amendments and all the documents that were produced in connection with this project. My conclusion- a total waste of money. There are multiple plannimg initiatives floating aroumd and no sense of overall direction designed to benefit the people who pay the taxes. Developers have legitimate complaints about costs and delays. The answer is to devote planning resources to providing an actual service in the permitting process instead of “imagining” ways to increase the cost and inconvenience for residents in the ways others have identified.
Developers aren’t hurting. They expect an internal rate of return of 25% which translates to 12-14% annually. What other business gets that kind of return?
Unless there are plans to improve the traffic plans on the existing roadways as well, more pedestrians and cyclists will mean more deadly encounters with vehicles. Logical planning should not force people out of their cars with no safe pedestrian options. The plan must be holistic. Gallows Rd, Little River Turnpike, and Columbia Pike are all good examples of dangerous places for pedestrians and bicycles while traffic gets worse and no viable public transportation options exist. I would love to ride my bike around Annandale, but I’d have to make sure my affairs were in order before I did.
Right on Pam! And the longer bike trails are so close by – but sadly disconnected from Annandale. A family of bike riders with kids would be crazy to attempt an afternoon ride on the trail and lunch in Annandale. What a lost opportunity! Unless planners and developers seem to want Annandale to be isolated from the rest of the county and inhospitable to families and commerce?