1746793 Zoning Commission Notice of Final Rulemaking & Order No. 11-01: Case No. 11-01 (Text Amendment – Location of Parking Spaces on a Lot)
-
ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
AND
Z.C. ORDER NO. 11-01
Z.C. Case No. 11-01
(Text Amendment – Location of Parking Spaces on a Lot)
September 12, 2011
The Zoning Commission for the District of Columbia (Commission), pursuant to its authority under § 1 of the Zoning Act of 1938, approved June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 797; D.C. Official Code § 6-641.01 (2008 Repl.)); hereby gives notice of adoption of the following text amendments to the Zoning Regulations of the District of Columbia (Title 11 DCMR).
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the D.C. Register on July 1, 2011, at 58 DCR 5472.
The amendments shall become effective upon the publication of this notice in the D.C. Register.
Description of Amendments
Section 2116, LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES, of the Zoning Regulations currently permits parking within a permitted garage or carport, in an open area of a lot located in the rear yard, side yard or, except in an SP District anywhere on a lot if the parking space is accessory to a commercial or industrial use. (11 DCMR § 2116.2.) Required parking spaces are prohibited in the area between a building line and a lot line abutting a street. (11 DCMR § 2116.4.)
These amendments eliminate the exception for accessory commercial parking, extend the prohibition against parking between a building restriction line and a lot line abutting a street to non–required parking spaces, and offer greater clarity on corner lots, where parking may currently be allowed in “side yards” that are nonetheless adjacent to streets.
The amendments accomplished this by prohibiting all parking between a building restriction line and a lot line abutting a street, or between a lot line abutting a street and the more restrictive of either a building façade, or a line extending from and parallel to a building façade, in all Zone Districts except in an Industrial District or a building used as a parking attendant shelter (“Location Restriction”).
The Location Restriction is illustrated in the following diagram:
The amendments also require that parking spaces that are located within structures be located at least twenty feet (20 ft.) from all lot lines that abut public streets, unless the ceilings of all parking levels are at or below the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk at all points along the building frontage or the parking spaces are accessory to a one-family dwelling (“Distance Requirement”).
Procedures Leading to Adoption of Amendments
The Office of Planning (OP) initiated this case by filing a memorandum dated January 14, 2011 that served as a petition. OP submitted a second memo on January 24, 2011 suggesting refinements to the text. At its January 24, 2011, public meeting, the Commission voted to set down the proposed text, as revised, for hearing.
A public hearing was scheduled for and held on April 28, 2011. At the hearing, Cheryl Cort, representing Coalition for Smarter Growth, Ken Archer, Geoffrey Hatchard, David Alpert, representing Greater Greater Washington, and Brad Green, representing the Sierra Club, testified in support of the text amendments.
Alma Gates, representing the Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100) testified in opposition. She noted that the Commission is considering changes to the side yard requirement for low and moderate density residential zones as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) being conducted under Z.C. Case No. 08-06. If adopted, the revised requirements would permit one “side setback” with less than the current eight foot minimum if the aggregate ratio is met This flexibility, together with the Location Restriction would, she argued, result in such unintended consequences as the need to obtain a variance to have a parking space in the areas between a building restriction line and a lot line abutting a street, the encouragement of tear downs as wider, out-of-scale new houses begin to pop up, and the elimination of off-street parking in residential neighborhoods where on-street parking is already in short supply.
Ms. Gates requested that the Commission adopt the following alternative text to specifically address the location of parking spaces in residence zones:
2116.2 In a residence district parking spaces shall be located in one of the follow ways:
(a) Within a permitted garage or carport subject to the special provisions of Chapter 23, or
(b) On an open area of the lot as follows:
(i) Within a rear yard; or
(ii) Within the side setback.
In response to Ms. Gate’s concern over the elimination of the reference to side yards, Commissioner May asked OP to consider a revision to the text of the Location Restriction so that it would affirmatively state that all parking is permitted in a side yard except under the specific circumstances described.
Ms. Gates also testified that advertised text for the Distance Requirement would affect the location of detached garages and the ability to have a garage on residential lots without alley access. She proposed that the text should be modified to begin with the phrase, “in a commercial district.”
With respect to that same provision, Commissioner May asked OP about the exception that applies “if the parking spaces is at least ten feet (10 ft.) below grade, at all points along the building frontage.” The Commissioner asked whether a sloped property could use an average of the differential to determine the extent that parking was below grade or whether it would be determined for each parking space. OP responded that the text would probably require the latter and suggested, as an alternative, that the text could specify a measurement point, such as curb level. OP was requested to review the issue.
In addition to these specific areas of concern, the Commission asked OP to generally review its proposal in light of the Committee of 100’s concerns, but set no deadline for the submission.
OP submitted a supplemental memorandum dated May 13, 2011. (Exhibit 14.)
As to the suggestion that the text of the Location Prohibition should first state that parking is permitted in a side yard, OP continued to believe that the text should simply indicate where parking is prohibited. Although the term “side yard” appears specific enough, OP believed that the term “can cause difficulty” in the absence of a proper definition, and that such a definition is being developed as part of ZRR.
The OP report agreed that the Distance Requirement could unduly restrict the construction of a detached garage in certain circumstances, but disagreed that the solution was to apply the requirement only to commercial zones. Instead, OP recommended exempting parking accessory to a one-family dwelling. OP explained that a number of other uses are permitted in residential uses, such as apartment buildings, museums, and hospitals that have significant amounts of structured parking and should be expected to follow the same rules as similarly sized parking structures in commercial zones.
As to the issue of how the ten- (10-) foot mark would be determined on a sloped property, OP recommended replacing the phrase “unless the surface of the parking spaces is at least ten feet (10 ft.) below grade” with the phrase “unless the ceilings of all parking levels are at or below the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk.”
On April 29, 2011, ANC 3D submitted a letter stating its issues and concerns. (Exhibit 13.) The letter stated that the ANC was concerned that the proposed text amendment would limit the ability of residents to replace their driveways and garages in the future or construct space in the side yard for parking, and that as a result, access to local street parking will become even more of a problem for neighborhood residents in the future. The ANC does not believe that the District’s residential parking permit program is adequate to ensure that neighborhood street parking is available to local residents. ANC 3D also associated itself with the comments made by the Committee of 100. A full discussion of the ANC’s issues and concerns appears later in this Order.
At a public meeting held on May 23, 2011, the Commission took proposed action to approve the text amendments as revised by OP in its May 13, 2011 report, authorizing referral of the proposed text to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the D.C. Register (DCR). The Commission confirmed that existing parking spaces that do not conform to the Location Restriction or the Distance Requirement would be grandfathered.
The Executive Director of NCPC, through a delegated action dated July 12, 2010, found that the proposed text amendments would not adversely affect the identified federal interests, nor be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital. (Exhibit 18.)
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the D.C. Register on July 1, 2011, at 58 DCR 5474, for a thirty- (30) day notice and comment period.
On July 28, 2011, the Committee of 100 submitted written comments on the advertised text, again asserting that the proposed text amendments “would remove current permitted parking locations of residential lots and place that parking on the street.” (Exhibit 19.) The comment points to the existing shortage of on-street parking and contends that reducing the area on a lot that can be used as parking spaces will only exacerbate the problem, result in significant changes in the R-1-A and R-1-B zones, and cause a hardship to the owners of corner lots.
The Committee of 100 also contends that the proposed text amendments would be in conflict with the following provision of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan because it would “further stress residential neighborhood streets that already experience high parking demand”:
Action T-3.2.D: Unbundle Parking Cost
Find ways to "unbundle" the cost of parking from residential units, allowing those purchasing or renting property to opt out of buying or renting parking spaces ... Further measures to reduce housing costs associated with off-street parking requirements, including waived or reduced parking requirements in the vicinity of Metro rail stations and along major transit corridors, should be pursued during the revision of the Zoning Regulations. These efforts should be coupled with programs to better manage residential street parking in neighborhoods of high parking demand, including adjustments to the costs of residential parking permits.
The Committee of 100 concludes by requesting that the Commission exclude residential properties from this proposed rulemaking until OP has shown:
- An improved balance between on-street parking supply and demand will result if the location of parking spaces on residential lots is more restrictive; and
- No additional impact on residential neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas will result from spill over parking if the location of parking spaces on commercial lots is more restrictive.
At a properly noticed public meeting held September 12, 2011, the Commission considered the comments of the Committee of 100 and ANC 3D.
First, the Commission finds no inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The provision cited by the Committee of 100 does not appear to be relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, but rather concerns “measures to reduce housing costs associated with off-street parking requirements.” The principal thrust of the amendments, in so far as they concern residential property, is to extend an existing location prohibition to non-required parking, not to reduce costs associated with providing required parking.
In fact, OP, in its report of January 14, 2010, detailed the many Comprehensive Plan policies that both favor and encourage the adoption of the amendment, particularly Urban Design Policy 2.2.10, Surface Parking, which states that “parking … should be located behind development rather than in front of it.”
The Commission has no reason to believe that this policy is limited to commercial development or the Council did not take into account the impact on neighborhood parking that would result from its implementation.
Second, the Commission doubts that the impact of the amendments will be as dire as the Committee of 100 and ANC 3D predict. The rule will not outlaw existing non-required parking spaces in the prohibited area and therefore will not immediately increase parking demand. Any increase will result from new development or the expansion of existing properties. To the extent these developments will be reviewed by this Commission as PUDs or by the BZA as theoretical lot subdivisions, their potential impact on neighborhood parking will be analyzed.
The Commission is required under § 13(d) of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Act of 1975, effective March 26, 1976 (D.C. Law 1-21; D.C. Official Code § 1-309.10(d) (2006 Repl. & 2011 Supp.) to give great weight to issues and concerns raised in the affected ANC's written recommendation. Great weight requires the acknowledgement of the ANC as the source of the recommendations and explicit reference to each of the ANC’s concerns. The written rationale for the decision must articulate with precision why the ANC does or does not offer persuasive evidence under the circumstances. In doing so, the Commission must articulate specific findings and conclusions with respect to each issue and concern raised by the ANC. (D.C. Official Code § 1-309.10(d) (3)(A) & (B).)
The Commission has considered ANC 3D’s concerns over the impact of the proposed amendments on neighborhood parking, but does not find its advice to be persuasive for the reasons stated above.
Having concluded that there is no reason to delay implementation of a Comprehensive Plan policy; the Commission took final action to adopt the following amendments:
Title 11 DCMR, Chapter 21, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, § 2116, LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES, is amended as follows:
Subsection 2116.2, is amended as follows:
Subsection 2116.2(a) is amended by adding a reference to the new § 2116.12 added through this rulemaking, and § 2116.2(b) is amended by deleting the existing provisions § 2116.2(b) and by replacing it with “On an open area of the lot except as provided in § 2116.4.”, so that the entire subsection reads as follows:
2116.2 Parking spaces, including car-sharing spaces, shall be located in one (1) of the following ways:
(a) Within a permitted garage or carport, subject to the special provisions of chapter 23 and § 2116. 12; or
(b) On an open area of the lot except as provided in § 2116.4.
Subsection 2116.4 is amended by deleting the existing § 2116.4 in its entirety, and replacing it with new text, to read as follows:
2116.4 Parking spaces shall not be located in the following areas:
(a) Between a building restriction line and a lot line abutting a street; or
(b) Except in an Industrial District or a building used solely as a parking attendant shelter, between a lot line abutting a street and the more restrictive of either a building façade or a line extending from and parallel to a building façade.
A new § 2116.12 is added to read as follows:
2116.12 Except for parking accessory to a one-family dwelling, parking spaces provided within a structure shall be located at least twenty feet (20 ft.) from all lot lines that abut public streets, unless the ceilings of all parking levels are at or below the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk at all points along the building frontage.
On May 23, 2011, upon the motion of Chairman Hood, as seconded by Commissioner Selfridge, the Zoning Commission APPROVED the petition at its public meeting by a vote of 5-0-0 (Anthony J. Hood, Konrad W. Schlater, Peter G. May, Greg M. Selfridge, and Michael G. Turnbull to approve)
On September 12, 2011, upon the motion of Vice Chairman Schlater, as seconded by Commissioner May, the Zoning Commission ADOPTED this Rulemaking at its public meeting by a vote of 5-0-0 (Anthony J. Hood, Konrad W. Schlater, Peter G. May, Greg M. Selfridge, and Michael G. Turnbull to adopt).
In accordance with the provisions of 11 DCMR § 3028.9, this Order shall become effective upon publication in the D.C. Register; that is on September 30, 2011.
ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
AND
Z.C. ORDER NO. 11-01
Z.C. Case No. 11-01
(Text Amendment – Location of Parking Spaces on a Lot)
September 12, 2011
The full text of this Zoning Commission Order is published in the “Final Rulemaking” section of this edition of the D.C. Register.
