Parking Requirements and the Future of OTR Development

Posted by on Saturday, December 8, 2012 · 16 Comments 

The following is a guest post by Cincinnati’s resident transit map maven and Pendleton resident Nate Wessel. View his various maps at his Cincy Map website, read his musings on all things transit on the Cincy Transit Blog or like the Cincinnati Transit System Map facebook page. Share your thoughts in the comments.

Easing Development Requirements for a More affordable, Pedestrian-Friendly OTR

Nate Wessel

The City of Cincinnati is considering the elimination of the longstanding requirement that almost any new or renovated building in Over-The-Rhine must include on-site car parking.

Basically, the requirement, actually dozens of pages of highly articulated regulations built into the zoning code (Chapter 1425) and applying to the entire city, states that every new (or repurposed) building must provide, on the same lot as the building itself, a certain number of parking spaces as a condition of it’s zoning approval. That means that in most cases, anyone constructing a new building or renovating an old one would be subject to the requirement that some space be set aside on the site for a parking lot.

Six city council members motioned on April 10th that these rules be removed for Downtown and Over-the-Rhine. Since then, the Cincinnati Department of Planning and Buildings has been working on gathering research, getting public input and drafting a recommendation for council which would still have to approve the measure for it to take effect.

From the motion: Parking requirements for residential, commercial and retail significantly increases the cost of development because it requires developers to purchase additional land for parking or include parking in the structure of a new building. Both significantly add to the cost of develoment and in some cases result in the destruction of historic structures in order to create parking lots. The cost is passed on to consumers, making urban living or starting a small business more expensive. Parking requirements are a major obstacle to the redevelopment of the urban core, the reutilization of existing buildings, and the conversion of buildings to residential, commercial and retail uses.

In a dense neighborhood like OTR, there isn’t much if any room for parking on many parcels. This can mean that the development of some properties for many or any uses is simply impossible without purchasing an adjacent parcel and using it as a parking lot. In some cases, that means tearing down the adjacent building, or not doing the project at all. In cases of new development on small enclosed lots, for a project to get off the ground, it typically has to invest between $15,000 and $30,000 per space for the construction of structured above- or below-ground parking.Donald Shoup. The High Cost of Free Parking. In the case of residential structures, the requirement for parking is at least one space per unit, potentially pushing up the cost of new condos in a small development by as much as $30,000 or more for each unit. For some people, a $30,000 garage is worth the price. For others it isn’t. The elimination of the requirement would also allow the eventual development of existing parking lots that currenly fulfill the requirement for adjacent buildings into actual buildings themselves that contribute something more substantial to the urban fabric.

Eliminating the requirement would give people the option to build in a more space-efficient manner at a lower cost. It would potentially lower the cost of living for people who don’t want or need private parking spaces, and over time it would allow the possibility of a denser, more walk-able, and more transit-oriented Over-The-Rhine.

Developers will continue to build parking spaces with many new units. There’s no indication that the elimination of the requirement would lead to a flood of new buildings with no parking at all. These days it often makes financial sense for a developer to bundle a parking space or two with a new unit so that tenants with cars and money to spare can have a secure place to store them. But that won’t always be that case. And with the rate of development in OTR, now is the time to start allowing the development of a denser, more walkable neighborhood with less cars, more buildings, and more people.

Category: OTR, Over-the-Rhine Blog, Over-the-Rhine Development, Over-the-Rhine photos · Tags: , , , , , ,

  • Michael Chewning

    Great Article. Thanks Seth!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brad.thomas.10 Brad Thomas

    CMC 1425-33: “Proximity to Streetcar. In SF, RM, RF-R, and UM Districts, where a residential use is located within 600 feet of a streetcar stop, the Director of City Planning and Buildings may grant a fifty percent reduction in the number of required parking spaces. If the effect of the 50% reduction means that fewer than three spaces are required, then no spaces need be provided.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

      It’s such an awkward way to start out removing parking requirements in my opinion. Near transit generally, I could maybe see. OTR is checkered with bus stops. The entire neighborhood is within 600 feet of one already, so I don’t really understand why the introduction of the streetcar would be the basis for a reduction.

      I also don’t see how the streetcar would substantially reduce the perceived need for a car either. It’ll be one of the shortest transit lines in the city(perhaps just after the Downtown parking shuttle), and going through the densest most walkable parts of the whole region. People always say they need to own a car for longer trips to the suburbs. Seems like living near a stop for the 17, 19, or 24 would reduce the ‘need’ for a car more.

      But hey, anything that reduces the requirement is good for the neighborhood, so whatever works politically works for me ;-)
      If they want to drop the requirement within 600 feet of ATMs, the zoo, and neighborhoods who’s names start with the letters A-F, I won’t complain. I’ll just shake my head and wonder what the logic is.

      • OTR Blog

        It would be nice to see a map of each stop at the center of a 600′ radius circle.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

          I’m *pretty sure* the attached is correct! I had some trouble with the scale though(I did double check) so if that doesn’t look like 600′ let me know and I’ll go back and try it again :)

          It covers surprisingly little of OTR, and remember, this regulation means only the possibility(!) of a waiving of 50%. Hardly the complete and exceptionless removal proposed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

          Further, given the zoning, it’s a seriously tiny amount of the neighborhood that is even open to the possibility(!) of somewhat reduced parking requirements, and that’s only once the streetcar is finally built a few years from now. To be exact, it’s currently 0% of the neighborhood that is effected by that part of the code(there are no streetcar stops) and 6.75% that will be effected(assuming the streetcar is built as planned and zoning stays the same).

          The little blue quasi-circles in this map are the areas that would be effected in OTR. This is hardly setting the stage for dense transit oriented development.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

          WHOOPS. Sorry scale is off. I was doing a 600′ diameter rather than radius. Just a sec…

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

          This is what happens when I get cocky with GIS…

          Yikes!
          The correct numbers and map:
          17.38% of the neighborhood

          Blue is the appropriately zoned area within 600′.

  • Tim Burke

    We should also look at making it more friendly for motorcycle/scooter parking in the downtown basin which would free up more spaces for cars.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1414890499 Matt Jacob

    Parking requirements are out of date and mostly obsolete because as you pointed out; if a project actually needs parking the developer will include it in their project out of necessity. In older, denser areas like OTR especially it makes even more sense to eliminate the requirements. But I’d still caution that they are still necessary for larger scale developments (say 50 or more units) because they could flood the area with cars and hurt those around them. That’s not to say however that large scale developments need a 1:1 unit to space ratio; just a little something to force them to add to the parking capacity.

    • Neil Clingerman

      But if it is a larger development, there is much incentive from a market perspective to include the parking – also they would have the resources to get it done too. For some poor small scale landlord who wants to redo a multiunit place in OTR below 10 units is out of luck – they need to get extra parking which will in turn ruin the neighborhood even though with some additional reform (remove a lot of the underutilized metered parking and replace with permit parking) the neighborhood could handle it.

      Cincinnatians are spoiled when it comes to parking, try going to a large dense city and see how hard it is to find it.

  • http://twitter.com/prolix21 Dan

    Including parking spaces helped bring a lot of residents to OTR 2-3 years ago, but I think we’ve hit the tipping point where those kind of amenities aren’t needed anymore. There is enough demand and with a number of large parking structures within a few blocks of most of OTR you have a few parking options. As previously mentioned, I’m sure some builders will choose to include them, especially on the higher-end of the price range, but for rental units and more affordable condos, there are parking alternatives available.

    I think some of the side street needs to be zoned as residential parking only. Force visitors into the garages and whatnot. Some CPD enforcement of parking regulations would be nice too.

    • OTRrez

      agreed. They should seriously zone for residential parking spaces. It’s a zoo trying to find a parking space after coming home from the grocery store (or wherever else) only to find NOTHING within a safe walking distance (esp. for multiple trips) and being beat out by bar hoppers that did a hack job at parking anyways, and dinged your neighbors car bumper in the process because they just HAD TO FIT THERE.

  • Zachary Schunn

    Nate, have you read the form-based code draft? It not only potentially removes or decreases parking minimums in much of the city, it also sets parking maximums in some zones. (I personally think the latter is a huge mistake, but that is a discussion for another day.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nate-Wessel/100002013606145 Nate Wessel

      I’ve seen bits of it, but I guess not that part. I’m personally against most restrictions on building as general a default, but I’d say that a restriction on the building of parking is one of the less offensive rules in zoning’s bag of tricks.

  • Peter

    Wouldn’t it be great to have a walkable, car-less OTR? Where’s the plan to get us from here to there? Where’s the timeline?

    The conversation illustrates the existence of the interactive parking “system.” Change a part and the change affects the other parts and, in turn, is affected by them. For example, to eliminate the off-street residential parking requirement will affect the other parts but there is no recognition of that fact. There is no residential permit parking program in the works. Heard anything about more bike racks?

    And, who knows what the effects of the outsourcing of major parts of the parking system will be? I’m betting, however, that the winning vendor will put parking meters at every on-street parking space in OTR. Bah! Humbug!