Office of Planning Interim Director Ellen McCarthy says the changes came in response to public cri

Last summer, smart-growth advocates were horrified and car defenders delighted to learn that the Office of Planning had decided to  scale back  its plans that would have allowed developers to construct fewer off-street parking spaces near high-capacity transit lines. As part of an update to the city's 1958 zoning code, the office, led then by  Harriet Tregoning , had proposed eliminating parking minimums  within half a mile of Metro stations and a quarter of a mile of high-frequency bus routes, as well as downtown, giving developers the freedom to build as many or as few spaces as they thought the market demanded. The proposal, Tregoning  said , "was really wigging people out," and so rather than eliminate the minimum altogether in transit zones, the Office of Planning opted to cut the requirements in half.
The office has released a revised version of the zoning update, and it retreats further from the initial ambitions to make D.C.'s new developments more transit-oriented and less car-centric. Under the new proposal, even the scaled-back change cutting the parking requirements in half rather than eliminating them altogether is gone for major bus corridors, leaving it intact just around Metro stations. The proposal also reduces the requirements for bicycle parking in large new buildings that were laid out in the earlier draft.
But the Office of Planning travel agency web site templates has gone even further, proposing to impose new restrictions on additions to rowhouses and reducing many neighborhoods' potential travel agency web site templates for residential density travel agency web site templates from what's currently allowed.
The office wants to cut the permissible height of buildings in rowhouse neighborhoods from the current 40 feet to 35 feet. Anything beyond that would require special approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Such approval can be costly and time-consuming.
Some residents will no doubt cheer the proposal, given the  outrage  over certain unattractive additions to rowhouses, known as pop-ups. And the change would indeed give the city some control over the aesthetics of pop-ups: travel agency web site templates If a rowhouse owner wanted to build above 35 feet, he or she would have to win approval from the BZA, which could weigh in on visual grounds.
But other homeowners will surely be upset if they bought a house thinking travel agency web site templates they could build an extra floor up to 40 feet, only to be told now that they can't without hiring a lawyer and going before the BZA. Some might scramble for building permits to make the additions before the new rules take effect.
Likewise, the new proposal would restrict the ability to convert a rowhouse into multiple units without special permission. It would also eliminate the earlier proposal to allow accessory dwelling units in converted garages and carriage houses as a matter of right, instead travel agency web site templates requiring travel agency web site templates a special exception for these units.
Office of Planning Interim Director  Ellen McCarthy  says the changes came in response to public criticism of pop-ups and of the proposed changes to parking regulations. "The overarching thinking was trying to be responsive to so many of the concerns we’ve heard over the past couple of years," she says.
The latest proposal includes several travel agency web site templates other changes. New corner stores, which have been essentially banned under the current zoning code but would have been allowed under the Office of Planning's earlier travel agency web site templates proposal, would now face certain restrictions. For instance, travel agency web site templates they'd have to devote at least 20 percent of their space to perishable goods such as produce, meat, milk, fish, and frozen foods. That could serve as an incentive for new corner stores to offer healthier products or as a disincentive travel agency web site templates for them to open in the first place.
travel agency web site templates The proposal would also force new retailers in excess of 50,000 square feet to apply for a special exception from the city's zoning officials. This is almost certainly a response to the Walmart stores that are opening across the city, which have aroused some public criticism but couldn't be prevented by the city, since they were built as a matter of right under current zoning law.
There's also a provision to ban camping on alley lots in rowhouse zones unless they receive a special exception. That's apparently in response to the cluster of tiny houses that's cropped up in an alley triangle in the Stronghold neighborhood, to the annoyance of some neighbors who used to park their cars there. The owners of these self-built homes aren't currently allowed to reside there. The people behind the tiny house project hoped that the zoning update would make it easier for people to live in alley dwellings; instead, this change could make it harder.
With the proposed revisions to the zoning update, certain top priorities of the rewrite would still be accomplished principally the need to simplify the now-inscrutable code. But in her many public presentations pitching the Office of Planning's earlier version, Tregoning emphasized the need to respond to a growing city population by encouraging more residential density travel agency web site templates and transportation choices other than car ownership. Tregoning hoped that the move to allow more accessory dwelling units would ease the housing crunch and slow the rising cost of housing, and that the elimination of parking requirements near transit would promote Metro and bus ridership, walking, biking, and car sharing. Instead, the latest proposal not only retreats from the accessory dwelling unit change, but also limits the ability to turn rowhouses into multiple units, and scales back the parking changes.
Still, McCarthy maintains the latest version would promote travel agency web site templates more sustainable growth in the city. "I think our policy is still basically one where we're still committed to smart growth, we’re still committed travel agency web site templates to being consistent with the goals that were set in the comprehensive plan," she says. "But where there are real concerns that have been raised by people who’ve testified before the Zoning Commission, we’re trying to make sure we’ve been responsive travel agency web site templates to them."
The OP pop-up proposal would apply only in R-4 zones. As I recall, the V St. location is in a commercial zone. If I have that right, then how would the proposed change have restricted the V St. project?
Finally, some commonsense is returning to some of these ridiculous "smart growth" policies. (BTW, any concept with "smart" in the name is an indicator of Orwellian doublespeak and deception, i.e., the SmartCar). Policies to permit high density residencies with no provisions for cars is just plain stupid. travel agency web site templates People need cars in DC, even if the Metro is nearby and working efficiently (which it isn't). Metro does not and cannot fulfill all transportation needs. Nor can bikes and walking. Cars must be a part of the mix, so get over it.
in fact about 1/3 of households in DC are currently travel agency web site templates carfree, despite current poor service on metro, travel agency web site templates the limited number of cycle tracks, the parking mins, and the fact that a good amount of DC housing is in neighborhoods with poor metrorail access.
We are really frustrated with yet more backtracking on a modern zoning code for DC. The new proposal excludes major bus corridors from getting credit for being transit-accessible and reducing parking requirements by half. For example parts of U St., Logan Circle, Georgia Ave., H St NE would be excluded.
Smartgrowth--so what if 1/3 of the District is car free? Does that mean the other 2/3's should be ignored and have their rights violated? DC isn't Utopia. People own cars because they see a need. Many have no choice because of their work, family size (yes, people do have families in DC, we are not all 25 year olds) health or age. They will need to park their cars where they live. It doesn't mean that those who want to ride bikes or pogo sticks to work can't do that too.
I have no car and have no problems living in DC. I bike, use metro, and rent a car when those options would be inadequate. But that's beside the point when we're talking travel agency web site templates about requiring a minimum amount of parking spaces get built with new development - if people want the parking available, then the developments will include parking travel agency web site templates or they won't get sold/rented. Not sure why we need to require anything.
I dont wnat anyones rights violated. You have no right to an on street parking space. You want a guaranteed space by your home, well buy or rent a home with an off street space - there are plenty. And relaxing parking minimums does not mean that developers will not build more buildings with parking garages. I dont think the rights of people who want 2nd bedrooms should be taken away - but we do not require developers to build 2Br apts. We leave that to the market.
BTW, its not only 25 year olds who bike. I am over 50 and I bike. There are also plenty of people who go car free by relying on walking, transit and car share, not biking. There are also carfree families.
What the 1/3 shows is that if there are SOME units without parking, there will be demand for them. Allowing some parking free units does not mean all units will be car free. One would need to be logic free to expect that.
the problem is there are some people who live in and/or own old grandfathered units that have no off street parking. The availability of cheap RPP's is of great economic value to them. If RPPs remain cheap, then many folks who live in parking free or parking lite buildings will get RPPs and make on street travel agency web site templates parking harder to find making those folks worse off. Alternaively if DC increases the cost of RPPs, then those folks will have to pay more. They have a material travel agency web site templates interest in an artificially high supply of offstreet spaces, and/or less new development.
Oh please. The ONLY people dissatisfied with this decision are the developers who want to cram as many people into their properties as possible without regard to the social cost it exacts upon the rest of the community. The city government has a responsibility to the entire community, not just a few developers who want to cram a few more tiny overpriced travel agency web site templates apartments into the lots they own. Requiring parking spaces