Chapter 23, Article 5: Division 9- Off-Street Parking

Sec. 23-5.9.1- Applicability, clarifies reference to “P district” to specifically identify the zoning districts including Planned Development Commercial (PDC) and Planned Development Housing (PDH). The PDC and PDH zoning districts were established for greater design flexibility resulting in potential deviations from the parking standards. Parking as a result is determined by the development mix proposed and approved as part of the development review process. The Mixed Use (MU) Zoning district has also been added as reference in this Section, acknowledging off-street parking modifications provided in the Mixed Use Zoning District Sec. 23-6.28.6- Parking. Sec. 23-5.9.1 was last updated in 1995. The Mixed Use District was added to the Zoning ordinance in 2012 and includes parking modifications not generally available in other zoning districts. An update is necessary to reflect Code amendments since 1995 that impact the Off-Street Parking standards.

Sec. 23-5.9.2- General provisions, clarifies vague references made to unspecified boards and sources of standards and corrects enforcement responsibilities, replacing references to the Director of Planning with the Zoning Administrator. To be consistent with other Code sections the proposal adds capitalization when the County Codes, County Forms, County Permits, County position titles such as the Zoning Administrator, the Commonwealth are referenced.  The stacking space dimensions requirements presently located in Sec. 23-5.9.2(i) is proposed to be removed as misplaced, letting Division 11- Off-Street Stacking located elsewhere in the Code address stacking. Lighting requirements in (j) have also been proposed for removal as misplaced and unnecessary, letting 23-5.12- Outdoor Lighting address outdoor lighting. The proposal would expand allowable lighting hours in the newly assigned (j) to include up to an hour prior to opening and following closing in consideration of employees and deliveries. Lastly, with the support of the Zoning (including Zoning Enforcement) office, Subsection (r) is proposed to be removed from the Section. Staff believes Subsection (r), meant to address onsite parking upon lots of 20,000 sq. ft. or less adds confusion and unnecessarily complicates residential parking and its enforcement.

Resulting from questions received from the Planning Commission at meeting on April 5, 2017, staff has provided additional background and rationale behind the proposal to remove Subsection (r) as part of the amendment. The additional information is located below in the Additional Background/ Other Considerations portion of this Executive Summary.

Sec. 23-5.9.3- Minimum Required Parking Spaces, amendments intended to alphabetize identified uses for which minimum parking is specified.  Standards are drafted for clarity of interpretation and consistency. The proposal adds complementary minimum parking standards for uses recently added to the zoning ordinance as well as a number of long established uses that had not previously had specifically assigned parking standards. Newly listed or long established uses for which specific minimum parking standards have been added include: Auction Establishment; Bed and Breakfast I, II; Contractor’s Office and Shops; Feed Mill; Appliance Store (added to Furniture or Carpet Store); Industrial/ Flex, Abattoir (added to Industry Types I, II, III); Brewery, Winery, Cidery, Distillery; Rooming/ Boarding House; Live Entertainment, Outdoor.  Those recent additions have no parking standards specified presently as Sec. 23-5.9.3 was last updated in 2004.  The proposal seeks to reduce minimum required parking standards where appropriate to reduce excessive parking areas and provide the opportunity to reduce development costs associated with parking. Specific instances where minimum parking standards are proposed to be reduced include: Furniture, Appliance or Carpet Store; Personal Service Establishment; Retail Sales Establishment; Shopping Center. An increase in parking is proposed for Place of Worship. The change results from recent amendments to the Mixed Use ordinance for Places of Worship, supported and approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 13, 2015 associated with Code Amendment Case #CA14-0005. The effect is a consistent standard of 1 space per 3 seats in the principal place of worship or one space per 200 sq. ft. gfa, whichever is greater, replacing 1 space per 4 seats in the principle place of worship or one space per 200 sq. ft. gfa designed for a use other than services whichever is greater. As proposed, minimum parking standards for eating establishment, carry out/ fast food have also increased slightly from 1 space per 100 sq. ft. gfa to 1.25 spaces per 100 sq. ft. gfa. Staff believes this increase is warranted considering parking demands on such uses and site plan submissions historically that tend to provide parking in excess of those required.  Examples include ST16-0001, Bojangles at Cosner’s Corner where 38 spaces required, 49 provided; ST15-0026, Taco Bell, Mudd Tavern Rd where 26 spaces required, 44 provided; ST14-0029, Burger King at Harrison Crossing where 32 spaces required, 35 provided; ST14-0040, Cook Out Restaurant where 29 spaces required, 44 provided. Parking standards for Private Schools remain constant, however the standard is proposed to also include Public Schools as they had not been specified with a minimum standard. The proposal relocates Minimum Required Parking Spaces Table Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4 within the table, with a clarification to Note 3 (formerly Note 4). Note 5 established minimum parking standards for Greenhouses, Commercial. The standard is proposed to be relocated into the minimum required parking table for Garden Centers, a term that replaced Greenhouses, Commercial in a prior Zoning update that occurred recently. To be consistent with the format of all other required minimum parking spaces, Garden Center requirements are similarly located in the Table as proposed. Staff has proposed striking Note 6. Note 6 would have required submission of a parking study in instances where parking exceeds the minimum requirements by specified percentages depending on the size of the development. The result leaves the decision to, and costs associated with exceeding the minimum parking standard up to the applicant/ developer having weighed the cost and benefit of added investment. Additionally, other project requirements that may require site area such as street buffer, transitional screening, stormwater management, internal and peripheral parking lot landscaping, building and sidewalks, open space, points of access and drive aisles, etc. act to rein in the extent to which many sites could be over-parked. The effect of the proposed removal of Note 6 is reduction of added project scrutiny during review.

Sec. 23-5.9.4- Parking Geometrics Standards, is a new Section within the Off-Street Parking Ordinance that establishes parking stall and access aisle standards for parking lots. Though the standards are new to appear in Article 9, Off-Street Parking, the standards themselves have been sourced directly from the Spotsylvania County Design Standards Manual, Article 5- Streets, Parking and Driveways. Staff proposes to relocate the standards to the Zoning ordinance and ultimately remove them from the Design Standards Manual with an update to that document in the future. In discussion with Planning, Zoning and Transportation staff it was felt parking dimensions standards are best relocated as proposed.

Chapter 23, Article 5: Division 10- Off-Street Loading

Sec. 23-5.10.1- Applicability, for consistency with ongoing Code update efforts the proposal adds capitalization when County Codes are referenced. Proposed amendments also correct enforcement responsibilities by replacing reference to the Director of Planning with the Zoning Administrator. Proposed amendment enhances reference to “P district” to clarify and specifically identify applicable zoning districts that include Planned Development Commercial (PDC) and Planned Development Housing (PDH). As noted above in the summary of amendments provided pertaining to Division 9- Off Street Parking, the PDC and PDH zoning districts were established for greater design flexibility resulting in potential deviations from the parking standards. Parking as a result is determined by the development mix proposed and approved as part of the development review process. The Mixed Use (MU) Zoning district has also been added as reference in this Section, acknowledging off-street parking modifications provided in the Mixed Use Zoning District located in Sec. 23-6.28.6- Parking. Sec. 23-5.10.1 was last updated in 1995. The Mixed Use District was added to the Zoning ordinance in 2012 and includes the ability to make modifications not generally available in other zoning districts.

Sec. 23-5.10.2- General provisions, for consistency with ongoing Code update efforts the proposal adds capitalization when County Codes, County position titles such as the Zoning Administrator are referenced. Proposed amendments also correct enforcement responsibilities by replacing reference to the Director of Planning with the Zoning Administrator. Lighting requirements in (g) are proposed for removal as misplaced and unnecessary, letting 23-5.12- Outdoor Lighting address outdoor lighting. Staff proposes a life, health and safety amendment by adding (l) to avoid conflicts between the planning, design and function of loading spaces in relation to traffic circulation.

Sec. 23-5.10.4- Off Street Loading, the use Industrial/ Flex is proposed to be added to Loading Standards already in place for industry Types I, II, III. Loading space standards for Private Schools is proposed to be expanded to also apply to Public Schools. 

Resulting from questions received from the Planning Commission at meeting on April 5, 2017 about loading areas considering fire lane requirements, staff has provided additional background and rationale with input from Fire Rescue and Emergency Management staff. The additional information is located below in the Additional Background/ Other Considerations portion of this Executive Summary.

Chapter 23, Article 5: Division 11- Off-Street Stacking

Sec. 23-5.11.2- General provisions, for consistency with ongoing Code update efforts the proposal adds capitalization when County Codes, County position titles such as the Zoning Administrator are referenced. Proposed amendments also correct enforcement responsibilities by replacing reference to the Director of Planning with the Zoning Administrator. Lighting requirements in (7) are proposed for removal as misplaced and unnecessary, letting 23-5.12- Outdoor Lighting address outdoor lighting. Staff proposes a life, health and safety amendment by adding (8) to avoid conflicts between the planning, design and function of stacking spaces in relation to traffic circulation and public access to buildings.

Sec. 23-5.11.3- Minimum required space, proposal would amend carwash stacking space standard to apply to all principle use carwash facilities instead of just automated ones. New stacking space standards are proposed to be added for fuel pumps and private/ public schools.  A standalone standard for “all other uses” has been incorporated into the Minimum required space table so that standards are consistently located there.

The impetus for ongoing review and update efforts within the Zoning Ordinance is driven by Vision Strategy A.5 of the Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan. This is a Comprehensive Plan Implementation Item. The Planning Commission authorized public hearing for CA17-0005 (Ord. No. 23-171) on April 5, 2017.

During the April 5, 2017 Public Hearing Authorization, the Planning Commission raised a number of questions looking for more detail, rationale, and historical background in regard to Fire Lanes located across building frontages and Off-Street Parking Subsection 23-5.9.2(r). As communicated as intent during the meeting, Planning Staff reached out to Fire Rescue Emergency Management (FREM) staff as well as the Zoning Administrator to address the questions posed by the Planning Commission. Questions and responses are below:

(1)      During the April 5, 2017 meeting the Planning Commission inquired about fire lane requirements, their source, and in regard to their preventing front entrance parking, loading, pick-up or drop off for customers and deliveries, specifically mentioning shopping centers.

State Code and the Spotsylvania County Design Standards Manual set up the framework for required fire lanes. County Fire Officials are enabled to require Fire Lanes by the Code of Virginia. Building fronts with main public access points are the favored locations for fire lane placements as they tend to be entry points of least resistance and offer quick and easy access in emergency situations. As a result, convenience of access for life, health, and safety outweighs convenience of access for loading and unloading, customer pick-ups, etc. Building or shopping center sides and rears often have minimal points of access if any, and rear doors are typically reserved for private access and often times are locked whereby additional challenges are faced. In addition to the importance of ease of access, County FREM staff point to fire hose access and available length considerations as well as height limitations with ladders if need be. This is especially concerning when considering older structures that are not fire sprinklered. Additionally, in FREM’s experience, many private shopping centers prefer fire lanes across their frontages due to the fact that it prevents vehicle loading and stacking across their frontage whereby conflicts with pedestrians, vehicle movements in travelways can become “bogged down” with pull in, pull out movements and double parking. Simply, shifting loading areas away from the immediate building front avoids front door chaos that would otherwise need to be enforced on a project by project basis to ensure a positive outcome. Many private developments do not want to devote resources to “policing” their front doors and the County lacks resources to monitor each and every site to assure loading areas along building fronts would flow ideally. As a result, fire lane restrictions have been viewed favorably and reduce risk of day to day conflict and potential for significant conflict in cases of FREM emergency.

(2)      During the April 5, 2017 meeting the Planning Commission sought greater detail and depth of understanding about Off-Street Parking Subsection 23-5.9.2(r) proposed for removal in the draft amendment. What are the benefits of removing the language from an enforcement perspective? Would removal of the language potentially alleviate or lessen complaints related to parking within the right-of-way? Alternatively, are there potential negatives if the language was removed and if so what would be the negative consequence?

For this inquiry the County Zoning Administrator was contacted to provide input regarding the rationale for the proposed removal of the Subsection. The Zoning Administrator was able to provide a detailed background on the Subsection in question. Parking Subsection (r) was added to the Zoning Ordinance in 2007 as a means to address overcrowding which was a very popular complaint subject at the time decade or so ago. Overcrowding complaints received by the Zoning Enforcement staff have declined since the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008. From a Planning perspective the ordinance addresses a possible symptom of overcrowding while not directly addressing the main issue while potentially penalizing multiple vehicle owners or families not involved in overcrowding. The implication is that Subsection (r) is very restrictive in limiting the usable area of an owner’s property for parking, essentially cutting out about half the area of the yard and a side yard from the ability to park a personally owned vehicle as per the Zoning Administrator.  As a practical matter, the Zoning office does not believe Subsection (r) has been cited in cases of overcrowding since its adoption in 2007. As a result, the Subsection has not had value as initially intended. Given that, the Subsection could have use as an enforcement tool if the County were to receive a complaint about a lot filled with vehicles and vehicles parking in the front yard or filling the front yard of a home. Complaints in such cases would likely be driven by community aesthetics and property values concerns or a symptom reported that possible overcrowding exists.  As mentioned during the April 5, 2017 meeting by Planning staff however is that Subsection (r) could result in the unintended consequence of driving excess parked vehicles into the cul-de-sac and street side parking which could generate other travel way complaints with little the County could do. Spotsylvania is without the authority to pass an ordinance regulating parking on secondary roads unless further authority is granted by the General Assembly. The Commonwealth of Virginia owns the roads and right-of-ways. The County does not have the authority to enforce either parking or inoperative vehicles on them.

Subsection (r) for onsite parking would require specific complaints in order to investigate and generate enforcement actions. As noted above, the Zoning office has not cited this Subsection in cases of overcrowding since its adoption in 2007. Constant monitoring and enforcement of residential lots under 20,000 square feet throughout the County is otherwise impractical considering limited enforcement resources.  

It is good to note that removal of Subsection (r) as proposed will not result in removal of protections against inoperable vehicles or untagged vehicles on lots. Such protections will remain in place and are located elsewhere in County Code Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, specifically Sec. 12-20 and Sec. 12-21.

(3)   Clarification of shared parking provisions within the Off-Street Parking ordinance.

The Off-Street Parking ordinance has a general shared parking provision located in Subsection 23-5.9.2(c) that states:

Required off-street parking spaces may be provided cooperatively for two (2) or more uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the permanent availability of such spaces to the satisfaction of the director of planning. The amount of such combined space shall equal the sum of the amounts required for the separate uses, except that the board may reduce the total number of parking spaces required by strict application of said requirements when it can be determined that the same spaces may adequately serve two (2) or more uses by reason of the hours of operation of such uses.

The shared parking provision does have application across all uses provided cooperative agreements among users, sufficient parking provided while considering parking demands relative to hours of operation.

At last meeting staff made mention of a shared parking provision specific to Places of Worship located within the Off-Street Parking Table Notes in Sec. 23-5.9.3- Minimum required parking spaces, without acknowledging a broader parking provision exists in Subsection 23-5.9.2(c), as referenced above. This may have caused some confusion and staff would like to clarify the issue. The shared parking note within Sec. 23-5.9.3 only has application with Places of Worship and staff intended to stress that no other use within the parking spaces table included such language. The Place of Worship specific shared parking note was re-reviewed in consultation with the Zoning office following the April 5, 2017 meeting with the Planning Commission. As a result staff has returned the shared parking note specific to Places of Worship confident that a more use inclusive shared parking provision already exists in the code. Staff does not believe an amendment is warranted at this time related to shared parking.