Our project is an in-patient, substance-abuse treatment center, located in a building which also houses an emergency detox facility. The CI project occupies less than 75% of the building, therefore we are under SSc3.3 Case 1.
The project building is undergoing renovation at the same time as the CI tenant project, and as part of that renovation, the on-site parking is being reduced substantially (from 24 to 11 spaces; of those 11, 2 or 3 will be reserved for the detox facility's 'fleet' vans and police vehicles). However, the project is located in a zone with no minimum parking requirements, so we are in excess of zoning minimums.
Would we have to not exceed the city's 'no required minimum' (i.e. provide zero spaces) in order to comply with Case 1 Option 1?
Does anyone have any experience with alternative compliance paths in a situation like this, perhaps either by referencing the NC 'Option 4' (25% less than ITE study) or arguing that the significant reduction in spaces ought to qualify? (Using the ITE route would be complicated in any case, as neither of the land use types for the two uses are explicitly included in the ITE study.)
Larry Jones
Associate DirectorAtelier Ten
258 thumbs up
September 21, 2010 - 3:16 pm
Michael,
I think you may fall under the special circumstances choice on the letter template. My thoughts are that you are not adding new parking since these parking spaces existed prior to renovation and to the fact that the number of parking spaces is being reduced. I would think that in your narrative you explain your project and that even though your space is 75% less than the total building area, your project complies with Option 2 of Case 2. I would also reference a CIR ruling for NC SSc4.4 dated 5/23/08. The Ruling states, " In regard to the second question, the reduction in parking numbers as a result of the development of this project can be considered an equivalent approach to Option #4 – No New Parking. The submittal documentation should clearly identify the pre-development and post-development parking scenarios and numbers, demonstrating no net increase in parking as a result of this new project." In your case, it would be equivalent to Option 2 of Case 2. Either way, I think you can clearly argue you are meeting the credit intent. Good luck.