Among the proposal’s goals is to reduce the amount of surface parking lots downtown and open up shared parking opportunities. (BizSense file photo)
Providing a baseline number of dedicated parking spaces could soon no longer be a requisite for doing business or developing real estate in Richmond.
Two years after City Councilmembers formally requested it, a proposal to do away with zoning rules requiring a minimum amount of parking per a particular use is up for a public hearing and vote by the Planning Commission today (Monday).
A deciding council vote would follow, potentially at its April 24 meeting.
The change would put the decision for how much parking is needed to support a new business or development into the hands of the business owner or developer, rather than the city requiring a certain number of spaces that may not be needed for that use and can be cost-prohibitive for smaller businesses.
Currently, required off-street parking for new structures or uses is based on number of dwelling units, type of use or total floor area.
According to the Richmond Association of Realtors, which supports the change, a typical surface parking space costs about $10,000 to build, including the cost of the land beneath it, while structured parking such as parking decks costs about $25,000 per space.
“These costs are ultimately passed on to the end user, either a tenant through their rent or buyer through their purchase price,” wrote Joh Gehlbach, RAR’s vice president of government affairs, in a letter to the commission supporting the change.
Contending that such trends cause housing prices to rise, pushing affordability out of reach for some residents, Gehlbach added, “An overabundance of parking also has negative impacts on our transportation infrastructure, disincentivizes use and investment in public transit, and prevents the development of walkable, dense, mixed‐use neighborhoods that consumers prefer.”
“If granted the proper leeway, the free market will decide the number of parking spaces a specific development requires. City code should allow it to do so,” Gehlbach said.
The proposal stems from recommendations in the Richmond 300 master plan, which calls for moves away from “auto-centric” zoning and development in favor of denser, more walkable mixed-use neighborhoods.
Councilmember Andreas Addison championed the concept as the city pursued expansions to its TOD-1 Transit Oriented Nodal District, which encourages development designed around public transit. Zoning along the GRTC Pulse rapid transit bus line has been updated in recent years to allow more flexibility with parking and other rules.
Advocates note that the change would not remove existing parking or prohibit owners from providing parking on their properties, but rather allow them to determine how much parking is needed based on the market and neighborhood conditions. Parking size and screening requirements would continue to be regulated.
Planning and Development Review Director Kevin Vonck outside Richmond City Hall. (BizSense file)
In a presentation last month, Kevin Vonck, the city’s planning and development review director, said it isn’t an issue of whether parking would be included in new development. He said an analysis of 50 “substantial” projects approved in the city in recent years found that those developers went well above the minimums, providing three times the amount of required parking across those projects.
“We’re not requiring anybody to put in parking, but people still will put in parking,” Vonck said in the presentation during a constituents meeting hosted by councilmembers Katherine Jordan and Stephanie Lynch.
“When somebody comes in and decides to make an investment or build a product, they’re going to have to think about, ‘How ultimately am I going to be able to sell, rent or lease this product, and how important of a factor is off-street or dedicated parking going to be as part of it?’” Vonck said. “It’s looking at allowing the market to shape more of those dynamics.”
The proposal has its share of critics. Several citizens have submitted opposition letters ahead of today’s commission meeting, contending that any cost savings for developers would not necessarily be passed on to homeowners or renters. Others said parking is already scarce in certain areas and expressed concern that the change would exacerbate the issue.
At the community meeting last month, Oregon Hill resident Charles Poole said, “If you want to tweak the minimum parking requirements, tweak the requirement, but to get rid of it altogether would be extremely burdensome for the neighborhoods.”
Contending that the city had not adequately engaged the public on the issue, Poole added, “You haven’t been going to the neighborhoods and asking what will help their quality of life. There’s been nobody in our neighborhood who’s said, ‘Oh, you know what? We need less parking spaces here.’”
Later in the meeting, Addison reiterated that the change would not affect current conditions.
Andreas Addison
“It is not getting rid of any existing parking. On-street parking stays the same, any existing parking structures are available; it’s just changing the requirement for new construction, mostly bigger construction projects, in terms of what’s required of them,” Addison said.
Addison added that the change could lead to other approaches such as shared parking, where spaces dedicated for one use could be opened to other uses at other times of day. He pointed to the Libbie and Grove area as an example, where he said parking can be hard to find despite empty lots for specific businesses after-hours and on weekends.
“It’s available; it should be used,” Addison said.
At a meeting last month, during a discussion about how to go about proposing the changes, Planning Commission Chairman Rodney Poole expressed his own concerns about eliminating parking requirements.
“The issue of eliminating parking minimums is a dramatic move that is truly happening in certain parts of the country,” said Poole, an executive with development firm The Wilton Cos.
“I as a citizen will be asking some questions about the propriety of eliminating parking minimums. You might think that’s unusual since my company is a development company, and generally speaking we don’t like parking requirements. But that’s not my role here,” he said. “My role here is to represent the citizens of the city, and I personally have some concerns about taking away parking minimums.”
The commission’s meeting is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m.
Among the proposal’s goals is to reduce the amount of surface parking lots downtown and open up shared parking opportunities. (BizSense file photo)
Providing a baseline number of dedicated parking spaces could soon no longer be a requisite for doing business or developing real estate in Richmond.
Two years after City Councilmembers formally requested it, a proposal to do away with zoning rules requiring a minimum amount of parking per a particular use is up for a public hearing and vote by the Planning Commission today (Monday).
A deciding council vote would follow, potentially at its April 24 meeting.
The change would put the decision for how much parking is needed to support a new business or development into the hands of the business owner or developer, rather than the city requiring a certain number of spaces that may not be needed for that use and can be cost-prohibitive for smaller businesses.
Currently, required off-street parking for new structures or uses is based on number of dwelling units, type of use or total floor area.
According to the Richmond Association of Realtors, which supports the change, a typical surface parking space costs about $10,000 to build, including the cost of the land beneath it, while structured parking such as parking decks costs about $25,000 per space.
“These costs are ultimately passed on to the end user, either a tenant through their rent or buyer through their purchase price,” wrote Joh Gehlbach, RAR’s vice president of government affairs, in a letter to the commission supporting the change.
Contending that such trends cause housing prices to rise, pushing affordability out of reach for some residents, Gehlbach added, “An overabundance of parking also has negative impacts on our transportation infrastructure, disincentivizes use and investment in public transit, and prevents the development of walkable, dense, mixed‐use neighborhoods that consumers prefer.”
“If granted the proper leeway, the free market will decide the number of parking spaces a specific development requires. City code should allow it to do so,” Gehlbach said.
The proposal stems from recommendations in the Richmond 300 master plan, which calls for moves away from “auto-centric” zoning and development in favor of denser, more walkable mixed-use neighborhoods.
Councilmember Andreas Addison championed the concept as the city pursued expansions to its TOD-1 Transit Oriented Nodal District, which encourages development designed around public transit. Zoning along the GRTC Pulse rapid transit bus line has been updated in recent years to allow more flexibility with parking and other rules.
Advocates note that the change would not remove existing parking or prohibit owners from providing parking on their properties, but rather allow them to determine how much parking is needed based on the market and neighborhood conditions. Parking size and screening requirements would continue to be regulated.
Planning and Development Review Director Kevin Vonck outside Richmond City Hall. (BizSense file)
In a presentation last month, Kevin Vonck, the city’s planning and development review director, said it isn’t an issue of whether parking would be included in new development. He said an analysis of 50 “substantial” projects approved in the city in recent years found that those developers went well above the minimums, providing three times the amount of required parking across those projects.
“We’re not requiring anybody to put in parking, but people still will put in parking,” Vonck said in the presentation during a constituents meeting hosted by councilmembers Katherine Jordan and Stephanie Lynch.
“When somebody comes in and decides to make an investment or build a product, they’re going to have to think about, ‘How ultimately am I going to be able to sell, rent or lease this product, and how important of a factor is off-street or dedicated parking going to be as part of it?’” Vonck said. “It’s looking at allowing the market to shape more of those dynamics.”
The proposal has its share of critics. Several citizens have submitted opposition letters ahead of today’s commission meeting, contending that any cost savings for developers would not necessarily be passed on to homeowners or renters. Others said parking is already scarce in certain areas and expressed concern that the change would exacerbate the issue.
At the community meeting last month, Oregon Hill resident Charles Poole said, “If you want to tweak the minimum parking requirements, tweak the requirement, but to get rid of it altogether would be extremely burdensome for the neighborhoods.”
Contending that the city had not adequately engaged the public on the issue, Poole added, “You haven’t been going to the neighborhoods and asking what will help their quality of life. There’s been nobody in our neighborhood who’s said, ‘Oh, you know what? We need less parking spaces here.’”
Later in the meeting, Addison reiterated that the change would not affect current conditions.
Andreas Addison
“It is not getting rid of any existing parking. On-street parking stays the same, any existing parking structures are available; it’s just changing the requirement for new construction, mostly bigger construction projects, in terms of what’s required of them,” Addison said.
Addison added that the change could lead to other approaches such as shared parking, where spaces dedicated for one use could be opened to other uses at other times of day. He pointed to the Libbie and Grove area as an example, where he said parking can be hard to find despite empty lots for specific businesses after-hours and on weekends.
“It’s available; it should be used,” Addison said.
At a meeting last month, during a discussion about how to go about proposing the changes, Planning Commission Chairman Rodney Poole expressed his own concerns about eliminating parking requirements.
“The issue of eliminating parking minimums is a dramatic move that is truly happening in certain parts of the country,” said Poole, an executive with development firm The Wilton Cos.
“I as a citizen will be asking some questions about the propriety of eliminating parking minimums. You might think that’s unusual since my company is a development company, and generally speaking we don’t like parking requirements. But that’s not my role here,” he said. “My role here is to represent the citizens of the city, and I personally have some concerns about taking away parking minimums.”
The commission’s meeting is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m.
Let us hope that the planning commission and council do the right thing and eliminate these parking requirements which have had a significant negative effect on the social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic character of the city for decades.
An urban apartment community needs about 1.1 to 1.25 spaces per unit to meet its own needs. Most lenders require a minimum of 1.0 spaces per unit. The builders will provide what they need to make sure they can lease up the units they build. The actual need for spaces is no different in the suburbs but the regulations are way too high there and out of date. I see too many seas of asphalt, much like provided by big box retailers. Its a waste of good land and a negative for storm water runoff.
I fully support having no parking minimums. As the Lowe’s on W Broad St shows our current guidelines lead to seas of asphalt that go unused. Over 100 spaces along Allen Ave on the side of Lowe’s have never been used even though they were required and now they’re utilized to store extra mulch, plants, and gravel.
Illogical idea to think the free market will police itself on this issue. Richmond needs more parking, not less. Current residents will be shoulder the burden of coping with new builds that have no incentive to include parking spaces. Another issue that will (again) make Richmond the punchline of jokes coming from county residents. Of course the developers like it…the streets around their homes won’t be affected (because they don’t live in the Richmond neighborhoods impacted by this change).
Easy solution, make neighborhood street parking for residents only. They can easily do parking decals like Williamsburg does near William and Mary. Don’t have a decal or the right color? You get towed.
Richmond has more than enough parking and always has. How that parking is utilized may be up for discussion. However, cities need density and public transportation. They do not need wasteful and expensive parking to the detriment of a good dense city. As for the city being the punchline of county-dweller’s jokes – that would only balance the jokes about the county burb-dwellers.
I’m not a developer, but I do I live in a neighborhood that would be impacted by this change, and I welcome removing parking minimums. If a neighborhood is difficult to park in, then I hope more county residents use GRTC to get downtown and to my neighborhood. Expecting to be able to park wherever you want to go is a luxury we can’t afford if we want our cities to survive climate change.
Not trying to be a wise guy but do you know ANYONE from the counties that has driven to a public place and then taken GRTC to downtown? I have never heard of anyone doing this in Richmond but maybe it happens? In my case I would have to drive from Hanover probably 14 miles to Willow Lawn and then take the Pulse. I know the Pulse takes about 35 minutes to go the full way so in that example I would have to get off the interstate, go three miles, find parking, get to the bus stop, possibly wait… Read more »
This proposal sounds smart but is foolish in so many ways. I’m in favor of letting the market determine the need for parking when you are talking about developing an area from scratch, but what happens to the tens of thousands of existing apartments that already depend on a limited supply of parking spaces? When I developed a 5-unit apartment building on Grace seven years ago, there were literally hundreds of off-street spots within a 2 block radius. No need for parking. Now, the city-owned deck at the corner of Grace and Second has an exclusive contract with Deco at… Read more »
Excellent points, thank you for sharing. And you’re absolutely right, 100% of these developers go unaffected as they do not live in the City.
Thank you for this. It’s so interesting to me that the commenters on this site skew incredibly pro-public transit and anti-parking. I think we all like the idea of public transit, so how do we really make it work in RVA? Do you have to invest in the transit first, then develop and hope it works out? Or vice versa? Just ask my family in Norfolk and Virginia Beach about The Tide. What a joke. And it’s much more populated.
It’s not about being anti-parking, I’m pro-walking and pro-living in an urban area. I’ve never lacked for being able to find parking. Sometimes I may have to walk a few blocks and I’m okay with it because I want a thriving city. The Tide has never been allowed to expand into Virginia Beach, as it was designed/intended, so that’s not a good example.
Martha – I am not anti-public transportation, I just feel like in Richmond it’s not a realistic option unless you are traveling down the Broad Street corridor for about 7 miles where the schedule is quick and stops are frequent. Like you, I am surprised at how many commentators here are so pro-public transit and “voice” their opinions here. If often makes me wonder if the people that speak up here in Richmond are doing so as a way of “doing what’s right for the planet” by setting policy for others to follow or do they actually ride the GRTC… Read more »
I used to take the bus all the time but the city got rid of the Robinson Street buses and the Westhampton bus in order to create the Pulse. Now I drive most of the time.
You lowered the rent of your units because of the market determined the outcome of you not offering parking, which sounds like the intended outcome. Your units are now ideal for people who have no interest in owning a vehicle because the prices are lower for an amenity they don’t need (parking). I know multiple people who live in Richmond without a car, they’re not students, and their numbers are growing.
I live in the city and never had an issue finding parking. A lot of pro-parking people dont seem to have lived in a big city before. Compared to any major metro area, Richmond has LOADS of parking
TOD and development euphoria has led to inballances in parking allocation in RVA. Advocates pushed the narrative that folks coming into new apts in Scotts Addition for example, would not have cars and that society was going car-less. Didn’t happen. In addition, the new development attracted entertainment venues that draw patrons from afar, not to mention commercial vendors. These parking needs must be addressed as well. While experienced and long-hold developers know that parking is an important element of leasibility, others will skate by with the least investment, trying to leverage the investment of others. Cars are not going away.… Read more »
To some extent, the market will address the issue. Parking will become an amenity, just like pools, game rooms, lounges, balconies, in apartment washer & dryer, and probably half a dozen other things. Depending on the kind of tenants you want to attract (young professionals willing to pay for amenities versus lower income people who are indifferent to amenities because they work two or more jobs to get by and have no time or need to ride an elliptical). When considering building a new building from scratch, developers will have to consider these kinds of questions. And one size might… Read more »
Insanity. Would the City ever let a developer decide on whether to have a Sprinkler System or not in the building? How about meeting ADA requirements? Is the City unaware of VCU or MCV and the parking issues they bring to the City. The City can dream that all the new apartment dwellers will ride the Pulse or take a bike in the commandeered Franklin Street lane but that’s pure naivety. The Zoning requirement that a business have a certain allotment of parking spaces is just basic common sense – to do otherwise is to merely stick your head in… Read more »
That’s because the building code is based on life safety, not convenience. Parking is a zoning issue.