Residential Parking Working Group€¦ · Ms. Michelle Winters Arlington Chamber of Commerce...

20172016July-August

20172016We are here

RPWG [#]= Meeting of theResidential Parking Working Group

• Staff from multiple County departments begin meeting and preparing for the Working Group

October• RPWG 2: “Residential Parking 101”;

exploring shared values and concerns

• RPWG 3: Parking and housing costs; site plan review and parking in detail

December• Open houses• Stakeholder presentations• Online comment open• RPWG 7: Further review of

policy alternatives

February-March• Staff and Working Group presentations

to Planning Commission/ Transportation Commission

• Staff and Working Group presentation to County Board for action on recommended policy.

• Working Group named• RPWG 1: Kickoff and

policy context

November• RPWG 4: Parking, vehicle ownership,

and mode choice• RPWG 5: Parking data from Arlington;

peer cities and best practices; direction for first policy alternatives

• RPWG 6: Assess and refine first policy alternatives

January• RPWG meetings to

assess public input, and finalize recommendation

• Presentation to County Manager

Following Board Action• Staff crafts implementation plan

for policy• Development review staff begins

using policy and implementation plan for project review

September

What’s the timeline for developing this policy recommendation?

Residential Parking Working GroupWhy are we here today?Arlington County staff are working with a group of community stakeholders – known as the Residential Parking Working Group – to recommend refined parking policy for proposed development in the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis Metro corridors.

The Group’s ChargeTo work with staff to create a clear and consistent methodology to evaluate site-specific, off-street parking ratios for multi-family, residential buildings proposed under the special exception (Site Plan or Use Permit) review process in the Rosslyn – Ballston and Jefferson Davis corridors. In its work with staff, the working group will explore alternative methodologies, evaluate the ramifications of those methodologies, and other transportation strategies that interrelate with off-street parking requirements.Staff and the Working Group may make recommendations to the County Board on further study of changes to the Arlington Zoning Ordinance, but this project will not recommend specific changes to the Ordinance.

Who is on the Working Group?The Working Group includes residents, representatives from Arlington’s various official commissions, developers, and business leaders to provide feedback to staff.

Name AffiliationMr. James Schroll, Chair Planning Commission

Mr. Paul Browne Citizens Advisory Commission on Housing

Ms. Sally Duran Economic Development Commission

Mr. Dennis Gerrity Arlington Civic Federation

Mr. Patrick Kenney Environment & Energy Conservation Commission

Mr. Rob Mandle Arlington Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Michael Perkins Transportation Commission

Mr. Aaron David Simon Resident-at-Large

Mr. Ben Spiritos NAIOP: Commercial Real Estate Development Association

Mr. Daniel VanPelt NAIOP: Commercial Real Estate Development Association

Ms. Michelle Winters Arlington Chamber of Commerce

RESIDENTIALPARKINGWORKINGGROUP•OPENHOUSE

Why is parking policy important?nAutomobile parking is one

component of Arlington’s multimodal transportation system and Smart Growth vision for the future.

nSpace for parking, like space for everything else, is limited in Arlington’s urban neighborhoods, especially in the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis corridors.

nWhen approving new development in these areas, the County must ensure that parking demand is accommodated without creating expensive and excessive off-street parking.

nMany factors can influence the demand for parking at a specific residential building, which is why Arlington’s Zoning Ordinance allows for special, case-by-case exceptions to standard parking requirements.

nAs new residential developments are being built in Arlington’s Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis corridors, it is important that Arlington County have a clear policy about how and when to approve the amount of parking proposed for apartment and condominium projects.


Which parts of Arlington are we talking about?

66

66

29

237

237

50

120

N. Glebe Rd.

Wilson Blvd.

Wilson Blvd.

Fairfax Dr.

Lee Hwy.

Lee Hwy.

N. Kent St.

N. Lynn St.

Fort Myer Dr.

N. Nash St.

Clarendon Blvd.Wilson Blvd.

N. Rhodes St.

Wilson Blvd.

Clarendon Blvd.

N. Veitch St.

15th St. N.

N. Uhle St. N. Courthouse Rd. Fairfax Dr.

N. Scott St.

13th St. N.

N. Taft St.

N. Troy St.

10th St. N.

Arlington Blvd.

Fairfa

x Dr.

N. Ode St.

N. Arlington Ridge Rd.

N. Pierce St.

N. Meade St.

Sprin

gs Rd

.

N. Monroe St.

Fairfax Dr.10th St. N.

Hend

erson

Rd.

4th Rd. N.

N. Uhle St.

N. Wayne St.

N. Veitch St.

14th St. N.

11th St. N.

N. Utah St.

N. Taylor St.

N. Stafford St.

N. Vermont St.

N. Vernon St.

N. Wakefield St.

N. Woodrow St.

7th

9th Rd. N.

9th St. N.

N. Irving St.

N. Ivy St.

N. Highland St.

N. Kenmore St.

N. Lincoln St.

N. Hudson St.

N. Edgewood St.

N. Edgewood St.

N. Fillmore St.

N. Fillmore St.

N. Garfield St.

N. Hudson St.

N. Lincoln

N. Queen St.

14th St. N.14th St. N.

16th St. N.

N. Quinn St.

N. Rolfe St.

N. Scott St.

Fairfa

x Dr.

N. Custis Rd.16th St. N.

Fairfax Dr.

N. Adams St.

N. Nash St.

N. Ode St.

N. Pierce St.

N. Queen St.

N. Quinn St.

12th St. N.

12th St. N. Fenton Cir.

N. Rolfe St.

N. Highland St.

N. Garfield St.

11th St. N.

N. Danville St.

N. Adams St.

13th Ct. N.

12th St. N.

N. Cleveland St.

N. Wayne St.

N. Barton St.

N. Jackson St. 13th

St. N.

N. Colonial Ct.

19th St. N.

Key Blvd.

N. Ode St.

N. Quinn St.

18th St. N.

Queens Ln.

N. Danville St.

N. Edgewood St.

More St.Franklin Rd.

Key Blvd

.

Fairfax Dr.

9th St. N.

10th St. N.

N. Kenmore

N. KansasKirkw

ood Rd.

N. Jackson St.

Fairfax Dr.

N. Ivy St.N. Irving St.

N. Hudson St.

N. Herndon St.

N. Daniel St.

N. Oak St.

19th St. N.

7th St. N.

8th St. N.

5th St. N.

6th St. N.

6th St. N.6th Rd. N.

8th St. N.

St. N.

N. Burlington St.

8th Rd. N.

N. Wakefield St.

N. Abingdon St.

N. Buchanan

Washington Blvd.

N. Oakland St.

N. Oxford St.

N. P

iedm

ont S

t.

N. Peidmont St.

5th St. N.

N. Q

uinc

y St

.

N. Randolph St.

11th St. N.

N. Quincy St.

N. Tazewell St.

18th St. N.

Service Road

N. Vermont St.

N. George Mason Dr.

4th C

t. N.

N. Thomas St.

N. Abingdon St.

7th St. N.

N. Buchanan

7th St. N.7th Rd. N.

7th St

. N.

5th Rd. N.

N. P

olla

rd S

t.

6th St. N.

12th Ct. N.

N. Wakefield St.

N. Carlin

16th Ct. N.

N. Scott St.

19th St. N.

N. Moore St.

17th St. N.

N. L

ynn

St.

N. Rhodes St.N. Troy St.

Key Blvd

.

N. B

ryan

St.

N.Hancock St.

N. Hartford St.

N. Nelson St.

9th St. N. 9th St. N.

9th St. N.

N. Buchanan St.

N. Albemarle St.

N. Park Dr.

11th St. N.

N. O

ak S

t.

14th S t.

Fort

Mye

r Dr.

N. Colonial Terr.

Wilson Blvd.

Franklin Rd.

Wilson Blvd.

N. George Mason Dr.

Ballston-MUMetro

Virginia Sq-GMU Metro

Court HouseMetro

ClarendonMetro

RosslynMetro

The policy recommendation would apply only to multi-family residential buildings that go through two special approval procedures (Site Plan and Unified Commercial/Mixed Use Development permit) in the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis Metro Corridors. Look at the maps below to see the places the recommended policy could apply to new residential development.

Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor

LEGEND

Metro Stations

Places where new parking policy would apply to proposed development

1/4 mile from Metro Station

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125Miles

12th St. S.

S. Fern St.

26th St. S.

18th St. S.

S. L

ynn

St.

S. N

ash

St.

S. A

rling

ton

Ridg

e Rd

.

Crys

tal D

r.

S. J

oyce

St.

16th St. S.

S. Joyce St.

S. Clark St.

32nd St. S.

S. Ball St.

S. E

ads

St.

S. Fern St.

6th St. S.

S. Ba

ll St.

12th St. S.12th St. S.

S. Eads St.

S. E

ads

St.

11th St. S.

10th St. S.

Long B

ridge D

r.

S. Elm St.

Jeffe

rson

Dav

is Hw

y.

23rd St. S.

S. E

ads

St. 20th St. S.

Jefferson Davis Hwy.

S. Clark St.

27th St. S.

18th St. S.

S. C

lark

St.

29th St. S.

Crys

tal D

r.

Potomac Ave.

33rd St. S.

35th St. S.

15th St. S.

S. Fair St.

14th St. S.

12th Rd. S.

S. Elm St.

13th St. S.

14th Rd. S.

Army Navy Dr.

Arm

y Nav

y Dr.

15th St. S.

Army Navy Dr.

S. B

ell S

t.

S. Hayes St.

395

395

1

1

Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway

S. H

ayes

St.

14th Rd. S.

Crystal CityMetro

PentagonCity Metro

JeffersonDavisCorridor

Parking is one part of Arlington’s evolving transportation system Most multi-family zoning districts require 1.125 parking spaces per dwelling unit for the first 200 units and 1 space per dwelling unit over 200. These requirements have been in place since 1962.

Parking and Arlington’s transportation system


1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2016

1962

2014 Metrowayservice begins

2010 Capital Bikeshareservice begins

1973 Metrobus service begins

1992 VRE service begins

1998 ART bus service begins

Metro Silver Lineservice opens

1977 Metro Blue Line service to National Airport opens

2004 Flexcar & Zipcar expand carsharing service

2015 car2go starts service

2012 Uber and Lyft begin service

2014

1979 Metro Orange Line service to Ballston opens

In 1962, the Parking Requirement was set at 1.125 spaces per unit. Meanwhile, the options for getting around Arlington have changed immensely.

County Transportation Demand Management policy adopted

Arlington Transportation Partners Residential Program begins

Master Transportation Plan Parking and Curbspace Management Element adopted

1990

2002

2009

Recent County Board Parking ApprovalsTo build less parking than the zoning ordinance normally requires, the County Board must approve a modification for each project (staff cannot reduce administratively).This graph shows the amount of parking per unit that the County Board has approved since 2010 for multi-family residential buildings in the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis Metro Corridors. The County Board has approved 15 buildings with less than 1 parking space per unit.

1.125

1.000

.250

0

.500

.750

2010

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2016

Num

ber o

f Par

king

Spa

ces

per H

ousi

ng U

nit

Facts about parking in Arlington

Commuting choices in Arlington change based on where someone lives and their incomenDrive-alone commuting is generally more

common among individuals with higher incomes and bus commuting is most common among middle-income commuters in the Metro Corridors.

nAcross the county, bus commuting is more common for lower income workers, but all income groups are about equally likely to take the train to work.

nIn contrast with Metro Corridor residents, for the county as a whole, driving alone for commuting is approximately the same for all income groups until annual household income reached $200,000 or more. For the highest-income Arlingtonians, the drive alone rate was notably higher.

nThis information comes from the 2015 Arlington Resident Transportation Study.


Arlington’s Master Transportation Plan includes 5 policies relevant totheWorkingGroup’seffort (paraphrased text):nPolicy 6 – Ensure that minimum needs are

met and excessive parking is not built.nPolicy 8 – Allow reduced parking for new

developments in close proximity to frequent transit service and exemplary access by non-motorized modes and car-sharing vehicles. Require enhanced transportation demand management measures for developments with reduced parking. Allow site plans to share parking with each other.

nPolicy 10 – Encourage the separation (“unbundling”) of parking cost from rent cost.

nPolicy 11 – Reduce or eliminate parking requirements for specialized projects near transit nodes when they advance related County transportation goals such as lowering the costs of transit-proximate housing. Tailor TDM measures for such projects appropriately.

•Garageparkingcostsbetween$40,000 and $60,000 per space to construct.

•Undergroundparkingismoreexpensive than surface lots or above-ground parking, but underground parking allows space for other uses such as housing, stores, and restaurants.

•Excessparkingactuallyleadspeopleto drive more and use other travel modes less, thereby increasing congestion and pollution.

The location of a residential building, income, and cost of parkinginfluenceparkingdemandFrom a 2013 analysis of parking at Arlington residential buildings.nFew residential parking garages

approached full occupancy—the average maximum occupancy was 80%.

nVehicle ownership was related to walkability of the area. Ownership rates were lower in more walkable areas than more “car dependent” areas but were about the same if the area was “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” walkable.

nVehicle ownership increases with income. Condo owners owned more vehicles per adult (0.88 vehicles/adult) than apartment residents (0.79).

nVehicle ownership drops as the cost of residential parking goes up.

•Countywide,61%ofArlingtonhouseholds have access to zero or one car, according to the 2010 – 2014 American Community Survey.

•Datashowthatzeroandone-carhouseholds are more common in theJeffersonDavisCorridorthanthe Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor, though households in both corridors are less likely to have cars than households in Arlington as a whole.

•Householdswithhigherincomeshave more vehicles than those with lower incomes according to both American Community Survey data and the 2015 Arlington Resident Study.

Parking policy around North America


In Alexandria, Virginia developers can build apartments and condos with fewer parking spaces when they are near Metro or Metroway. If a project is within a one-half mile walk of a Metro station, developers can build 20% less parking than the City would otherwise require. Buildings within a half-mile walk of Metroway can get a 10% reduction. Developers in Alexandria can also build fewer parking spaces for affordable housing. For a low-income family (60% of “area median income”) units, the building only needs to provide 0.75 spaces per unit, or three parking spaces for every four apartments.

Requirements for parking around the United States vary a great deal.Herearesomeexamplesofwhatstafffoundwhentheylookedatparking policies in 14 cities.

Montgomery County, Marlyand, allows projects in some locations to count on-street spaces toward the building’s required parking. Montgomery County also allows buildings within 1/4 mile of each other to share parking spaces.

In San Francisco, building owners can replace off-street parking spaces with bicycle parking spaces.

In Denver, a developer can build 20% less parking than usual if at least 10% of the apartments are reserved as “affordable.”

The City of Bellevue, Washington has established maximum parking requirements for properties within its downtown, meaning that developers cannot build more than a certain amount of parking.

Several cities across the country allow carshare parking spaces to count toward the required parking ratios. Vancouver, British Columbia goes a step further and has allowed each on-site carshare space to count for multiple required parking spaces.

Starting this year, the District of Columbia only requires one parking space for every three apartments or condos. That requirement drops to one for every six if the building is closer than ½-mile of Metro.

The City of Portland, Oregon has reduced the amount of parking that it mandates for buildings within about three blocks of a light rail station or about one block of a bus route that comes at least three times per hour during rush hours.

Principles for Guiding Policy Recommendations

The Residential Parking Working Group has adopted a set of principles to guide their policy recommendationPrinciple #1Recognize that the amount of parking provided in residential projects is a major cost factor affecting a project’s feasibility, contributing to the cost of housing and the affordability of housing able to be delivered.

Principle #2Be innovative and flexible with parking policy to allow developments to respond rationally to site-specific demand drivers, unique conditions, and future demand.

Principle #3Provide predictability to reduce uncertainty for developers proposing projects and for the community reviewing them.

Principle #4Recognize that increasing the supply of parking is a factor that contributes to higher demand for driving. Therefore higher parking requirements will result in higher car use, traffic, and environmental impacts.

Principle #5Recognize that reducing parking demand will reduce the impact on our roadway infrastructure. Parking policy must balance the benefits of reduced driving with the potential costs to support the shift to other modes of travel.

Principle #6Address potential for spillover into residential neighborhoods.

Which principles are important to you?Are there other principles?


Here are some strategies that the Working Group is considering for inclusion in its policy recommendation.

AffordableHousingParkingRatioReductions Units or buildings that have income restrictions qualify for a reduction in minimum parking requirements. Low-income households are less likely to own a vehicle than high-income households (all else being equal). The cost of building parking is high ($40,000 per space and higher), and allowing affordable housing developers to build less parking makes such projects easier to build while helping communities reach their affordable-housing production goals.

Parking Ratio Reductions for Small Development Sites Sites may be too small or too irregularly shaped to fit the parking that is required simply because parking spaces, access aisles, driveways, stairwells, and elevator banks have minimum dimensions that cannot be reduced. Metro tunnels and utilities can also block underground parking. Underground parking also requires access ramps down from the street level, and on small development sites, these ramps could take up all or most of any space that might otherwise house ground-floor retail. In these situations, some communities reduce parking requirements so that development of these sites can move forward.

On-Site Shared Parking For mixed-use buildings that share one garage, the parking requirements for each use are reduced since multiple uses can use the same spaces at different times of day.

Off-SiteSharedParkingA developer can count excess parking supply in other buildings or garages towards the new building’s parking requirements. Jurisdictions will frequently require a signed agreement or lease in order to allow reductions for off-site parking and may require that the off-site location be located within a certain distance of the new building so that residents can access it without walking far.


New strategies for policy consideration

Communities around the United States are approaching parking policy in a variety of ways that go beyond the traditional minimum parking requirements.



Transportation Services and Amenitiesto Promote Transit, Biking, Walking,

and Car-Sharing

In Arlington, as in other jurisdictions, developers are required to offer transportation services and amenities that incentivize biking, walking, and transit use when the developer gets approval to build fewer parking spaces than usually required. Other jurisdictions require developers to offer these services and amenities when projects build parking in excess of some amount.

Some of the services and amenities that a developermightberequiredtoofferinclude:

On-Site Car-sharing Spaces/Service Developers reserve off-street parking spaces for a car-sharing service. A further step that a developer can take is to arrange a contract with a car-sharing service provider in which the developer guarantees a level of revenue in order to keep the service operating on-site for a given period of time.A developer may offer free car-sharing memberships to tenants in order to encourage use. The offer of free membership may or may not require that the resident does not park a vehicle on site. Some communities allow a developer to count a car-sharing space toward their vehicle parking requirement.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the residential case, this can include improvements to sidewalks or building new pedestrian and bicycle paths that connect the site to the rest of the bicycle and pedestrian network. For example, at a site with a steep slope at one side, the developer might build a pedestrian staircase to help residents reach a sidewalk on the ground above the site. Providing secure bicycle parking is another measure. Note that such facilities are already part of Arlington County’s standard Site Plan conditions. However, some communities allow a developer to reduce their vehicle parking in exchange for more bike parking.

Incentives for Transit The developer agrees to subsidize transit fares for residents. The subsidy may come in the form of an on-going transit pass that reduces or eliminates the cost of transit for residents while they live at the building. Another version of a transit incentive a one-time pass designed to encourage the resident to “try” transit. Like car-sharing memberships, the offer of the subsidy may require that the resident not park a vehicle on site.

WhichofthesestrategiesarethebestfitforArlington?Are there any parking strategies we’ve missed?



Transit Overlay Zones Parking requirements differ based on access to transit. These zones are usually defined by distance, often differentiate between bus and rail service, and sometimes require that the transit available have high frequencies of service. Parking Ratio Reductions for “Bikeability” and “Walkability”Similar to the transit overlay zone concept, parking requirements differ based on the ease and safety with which individuals are able to travel around the site by biking or walking (also known as “bikeability” and “walkability). Measures of “bikeability” and “walkability” are evolving, but some communities allow parking reductions for sites where it is easy to get around by bike or by walking.

Tell us your thoughts

What else would you like to share about parking at new residential buildings?

What else would you like to share about parking in Arlington in general?


What happens next?


nThe Working Group will discuss what they have heard from you and others in Arlington.

nThe Working Group will continue working on its policy recommendation in January.nStaff will take the Working Group’s recommendation and craft a policy

recommendation for the County Manager before going to the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission for their input.

nFollowing Commission input, staff will present a recommendation for the Manager’s consideration again before County Board briefings and County Board action.

HowcanIstayinvolved?nSign up for e-mail updates, read project materials, and learn about upcoming project

meetings through the project web site.nAttend future Working Group meetings.nAttend the Commission and Board meetings when staff will present a recommended

policy and offer your opinion.

Remember that you can follow the whole project on the web athttps://commissions.arlingtonva.us/residential-parking-working-group/

Or

Go to http://arlingtonva.us and search “Residential Parking Working Group.”

Or

Contact: Stephen Crim, Parking Planner • 703-228-7494 • [email protected]

Residential Parking Working Group€¦ · Ms. Michelle Winters Arlington Chamber of Commerce...

Documents

Transcript of Residential Parking Working Group€¦ · Ms. Michelle Winters Arlington Chamber of Commerce...