If a typical 800+ unit apartment complex is proposed to have 1.6 parking spaces per unit (bedroom totals unknown, assumed average or typical), how might one roughly estimate real world parking when considering roommates and visitors etc.? Do codes usually factor in these extra cars, or are they based only on primary tenants? I am only looking for conversational possibilities (as a nieghbor) for a community meeting.
Thanks,
Lou
If it's for campus type housing, then I'd figure 2 per unit. If it's family type housing, then 1.6 per would probably work. I would probably also figure some "allowance" (say 10% extra) for visitor parking.
The parking is set by local zoning ordinances, usually developed over time, or through bad experiences on previous projects. Often, parking requirements are overkill (for instance, requiring a Wal*Mart) to have enough parking for December, but the lot is only 50% full the rest of the year. This is much more difficult to deal with than an ordinance that provides for minimum amounts (you can always add more).
Most developers only provide the minimum because of the complex dance between the number of units (maximized), parking (minimized) and storm water retention (based on total impervious surface) and green space (fixed percentage). It's an iterative process that we go through to maximize the building (therefore maximizing income) and satisfying the rest of the requirements.
Thank you for your time and the input, it's very helpful. The apartments are complete tear down of 430+ plus units to build 840+ units. The project in in an upscale, fully developed/established area with little possiblilty of increased infrastructure. It is also near a University (not necessarily walking distance), and currently houses a good percentage of students & roomates. Current parking is horrible. The 1.6 includes new sub-terranian garages. Proposed parking at this point, is said to be a lateral equation of old vs. new, so parking will still be troubling. One of the biggest issues with the apartments will be reduced or eliminated city/valley views of many homes that were bought a high premiums and taxed accordingly. AFAIK, there is no law or ordinance governing views, however, it would be silly for the nieghbors not to do everything possible to protect thier investments. The owner/developer and architect are half-way across the country and are only conscerned about profits (I do not blame them for this, that's business/capitalism). Our community council representatives live were they are not effected by the developement's traffic, parking and density issues and treat the issue as simply new is better than old(er). The existing project was built in the 70's, and aquired by the owner a few years ago. I can only hope the community reps recommend denial, as 95% of the residents who show up in standing room only meetings are againt the re-zoning. Current zoning is RMF35, proposed is a mix of RMF35, 45 and 75 (condo towers). It's a little overwhelming and feels like David and Goliath (owner/developer is a multi-billion $ company), but I feel I must do my due dilligence in protecting my investment and home. Thanks again for any input.
Lou
"3D Peruna" wrote in message news:ycJ8g.136$ snipped-for-privacy@fe02.lga...
I totally agree. I never expected otherwise.
I, like anyone else, am just protect my investments.
The issue occurs mainly because the developer is requesting a zone change allowing them to go much higher in density and elevation Typically (as juristictions vary), would the developer not have to show some hardship?
Agreed, as I wrote in my OP.
That makes them very predictable. If you can pay
Agreed, as I wrote in my OP.
Right on. That is why I am asking questions and trying to learn. I am not against the developer updating or rebuilding, actually, it might be nice.
The attributes of high density requiring a re-zone creates the problem.
I know in the end, the city council and departments will hash this out and decide, but right now it is time for community input, and I am trying to make plausible, productive comments to the board.
Great suggestion. Although in this case there is no vacant land around.
Thanks again Pat.
Lou
You've got nothing to complain about, it's not in my backyard.
You've got nothing to complain about, it's not in my backyard.
sure. it's the fundimental principle of the new architecture : Maximizationism
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.