The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-03-12 - Agendas - FinalOrdinance Review Commitee Mee�ng March 12, 2025; 3:30 PM Rock Street Mee�ng Room (100 W. Rock St.) and Zoom Zoom Registra�on Link htps://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SntaF8XzQaacfU_xyi2uDA Webinar ID: 849 3991 7109 Commitee Chair: Council Member Berna Commitee Members: Council Member Jones, Council Member Wiederkehr, Council Member Turk Staff: City Atorney Kit Williams, Senior Assistant City Atorney Blake Pennington, Assistant City Atorney Hannah Hungate, Jonathan Curth, Bri�n Bos�ck 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of Minutes from February 26, 2025 3.Unfinished Business (Page 21) •Committee Work Session: Ordinance to Amend § 172.05(A)(2) for residential development parking requirements 4.New Business •None 5.Announcements 6.Adjourn MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2025 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Wednesday, February 26, 2025 Hybrid – Room 326 and Zoom 1.The Ordinance Review Committee met in person and by Zoom in City Hall Room 326. For the Committee, Council Members Berna, Turk and Wiederkehr were present in person, and Council Member D’Andre Jones joined by Zoom. 2. Old Business: Meeting Minutes Council Member Turk moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 6, 2024. Council Member Wiederkehr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.New Business: Ordinance to Amend Parking Regulations Chair Berna asked Kit Williams how any changes to the City’s parking reductions would affect existing projects. Kit answered that it depended where the project was in the development process. Though the law is not always consistent, courts are more likely to find vested property interests in the approvals a project has already received. However, the City Council has extensive health and safety powers, and the Court has found that a city could require those with building permits to comply with new ordinances in the case of a health and safety emergency. Jonathan Curth added that some issues are legal issues and some are policy decisions, such as setting an effective date for the new regulations to take effect and honoring entitlements that occurred prior to that date. Kit Williams noted that policy decisions regarding effective date would not have the same weight in court as a determination by the fire department that our current procedure is unsafe under the fire code. Jonathan Curth gave a background on the City’s parking regulations including the City Council’s approval of an ordinance in December 2009 that overhauled the then-existing regulations. Among other things, the ordinance consolidated the regulations, ensured pedestrian access, refined motorcycle/scooter and bicycle rack standards, and added by- right reductions and increases. Council Member Turk asked if we know the intent of that Council’s decision to enact parking reductions. Jonathan answered that he couldn’t find specific language on the issue but that there were broad references to more efficient land use and a consideration of the fiscal use of property. Britin Bostick provided an overview of the current parking requirements and reductions available under Fayetteville City Code § 172.05(A)(2). Council Member Wiederkehr asked if the developer has the right to determine whether to use the reductions or if it is a Page 2 of 4 decision by staff. Jonathan Curth answered that it was currently a by-right option, but there is a catchall provision in non-residential parking that would allow staff to require that the developer demonstrate that there would not be any adverse impacts if a development did not want to have parking. However, that is not captured in the residential by-right reductions. Britin Bostick indicated that Long Range Planning has considered striking or limiting the reductions for motorcycles and scooters because it appears this may be causing some of the imbalance. She also discussed the Fire Department’s Memo on the issue, attached, which recommends: (1) requiring parking and safety evaluations upon initial project submittal, (2) placing a cap on development size for parking reductions, (3) developing a sliding scale for reduced parking ratios, and (4) creating parking reduction zones. Chief Jeremy Ashley added that the Fire Department is focused on working together with staff to come up with a solution for the problems that have occurred and may continue to occur. Council Member Turk asked how they arrived at the 0-40 range for number of bedrooms used in the Memo. Chief Ashley answered that they looked at the projects around the City to which they are consistently called for parking violations, and it was always the larger developments, so they created the 0-40 range as a jumping off point. Kit Williams asked if projects with smaller numbers of units were still being built or if Planning was seeing larger-unit projects, to which Jonathan answered that there has been quite a bit of variability in housing types that are being constructed. Britin Bostick proposed a change to Fayetteville City Code § 172.04(D) that would prohibit compact parking spaces for residential development. Kit Williams noted that the allowance for compact spaces made sense when enacted because there was a trend towards smaller cars, but that trend is now over. Britin Bostick proposed a change that would require a complete sidewalk or trail connection to a transit stop location in order for a developer to qualify for a transit stop reduction. Because we are not seeing a lot of motorcycles and scooters used, she suggested reducing the number of spaces that may be substituted for motorcycle and scooter spaces from 10% to 5% and changing the comparison rate to three motorcycle/scooter spaces per one automobile space, instead of a one-to-one ratio. She also proposed a change to the ratio of bicycle racks per automobile spaces of three to one because a lot of people who have a bicycle also have a car. Council Member Turk expressed that it would be helpful to have some data to know if people are not bringing their cars because they have access to transit. Britin Bostick proposed adding an additional reduction opportunity, which would allow 5% of required automobile parking spaces to be substituted with a loading zone designated for rideshare, taxi, or carpool pickup and drop-off. This would incentivize dedicated spaces so that those drivers will not park in places that block the fire department’s access. Britin Bostick proposed changes to the reductions for residential use which would cap the maximum reductions allowed and require that parking reductions be evaluated for safety Page 3 of 4 prior to approval. Kit Williams asked who would conduct the evaluation. Jonathan Curth answered that it would be multi-divisional, including the Fire Department, Planning Department, and other Staff, as necessary. Council Member Turk indicated that she would like a more explicit consideration of how the neighborhood is being impacted by the parking instead of just considering “existing neighborhood conditions.” Britin Bostick stated that trying to define a clear radius to encompass a neighborhood may not be uniformly applicable, so some aspects of the proposed changes are not as specifically defined in order to allow for flexibility. Council Member Wiederkehr indicated that he liked most of the change but wanted staff to have the ability to look at commercial, revenue-generating turnover parking. Jonathan Curth cautioned that it is tempting to use the zoning code to address a number of issues that may not be best handled in that respect. That is where parking districts may come in. Kit Williams wondered if the cap might consider not only the number of units in that building but also the number of units in nearby buildings because that would account for overflow parking. Jonathan Curth agreed and believed that the language allowing consideration of existing parking conditions and nearby developments captured that. Kit Williams stated that, as written, the reductions would only be evaluated for safety, so if they wanted to evaluate for neighborhood compatibility as well, the language would need to be changed. Jonathan Curth expressed that that calls into question how to define neighborhood parking compatibility. Is it that someone can always find a spot near their house? Leaving it open-ended could create tension. Britin Bostick added that the current language focused primarily on evaluating for safety, but they are open to other additions. Britin Bostick shared a table depicting the current reductions allowed by-right. As currently drafted, a development with 500 units could reduce the 500 parking spaces typically required by 175 such that it would only have to create 325 automobile parking spaces. If the caps were created, that same development could only reduce the required parking spaces by 50 and would still have to create 450 automobile parking spaces. Chair Berna asked where the balance is between maintaining parking and not slowing down development. Jonathan Curth answered that having the standards outlined could speed up the City’s process and actually allow projects to move faster. Council Member Turk asked if the public can appeal a staff member’s decision if they have an issue. Kit Williams answered that they can appeal a staff determination under our Code but would need a councilmember to support it. Chief Ashley added that the process probably gives more opportunity for the public to appeal than by-right allowances. Council Member Wiederkehr was not necessarily in favor of one standard city-wide and would want to incentivize development with parking reductions. To handle bicycles, he would like a requirement for indoor bicycle lockers so that bicycles are protected. He believes part of the parking issue is not just traffic but environmental. He also appreciated the potential consideration of density of existing buildings because most neighborhoods Page 4 of 4 can absorb one large project but cannot absorb a second or third. He pointed out that census data says 3% of people in Fayetteville don’t have a vehicle, which means there are long- term storage needs for 97% of the population. The reality too is that, with the housing situation, there may be multiple people living in one house, each with a car. He is not opposed to parking reductions but believes where they are given is more important. Council Member Turk supported the idea of incentivizing development down the urban corridor. She also added that some members of the public have an issue with giving discounts, and it would be nice to charge a fee for parking reductions, so that parking can be enforced and funded. Justin Clay responded that anything involving the Parking Department would have to have a revenue component so that it could pay for itself. The Committee agreed to make comments to Britin Bostick’s proposals and submit them to her and Kit Williams. The Committee decided to schedule its next meeting on March 12th from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4.There being no other business for the Committee to consider, Chair Berna adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Office of the Fire Marshal 303 W. Center St. www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Parking Requirements and Challenges for Multi-Family Housing in Fayetteville Parking requirements for multi-family housing in Fayetteville are outlined in the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC 172.05), which mandates one parking space per bedroom. However, the UDC currently allows developers to reduce parking by up to 35% as a matter of right, without requiring any assessment of the potential impact on the surrounding area (UDC 172.05(2)(a)). This significant reduction can create negative consequences, particularly in certain parts of the city, where it poses safety challenges for fire and police services, hinders access to new and existing structures, and complicates parking enforcement efforts. The Fayetteville Fire Department (FFD) supports revising the UDC to ensure that parking exemptions are not automatically granted. Instead, we recommend requiring comprehensive evaluations before any exemptions are approved. These evaluations should include parking studies and emergency services safety assessments specific to the proposed development site. Proposals for Consideration 1.Require Parking and Safety Evaluations Upon Initial Submittal Parking ratios below the standard one parking spot per bedroom should be evaluated by multiple City divisions, including Parking, Transportation, Fire, and Police, before a reduction is allowed. These evaluations should consider factors such as street widths, existing parking enforcement issues, potential impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, density of existing buildings, and access issues. Conducting these assessments early in the development process can prevent delays while ensuring public safety and feasibility. 2.Place a Cap on Development Size for Parking Reductions Under current rules, developments can utilize up to a 35% parking reduction if they meet all criteria, which many projects do. While a 10-bedroom project reduced to seven parking spaces may not cause significant issues, a 780-bedroom project reduced to 507 spaces would result in a shortfall of 273 spaces. To address this, projects with fewer than 40 bedrooms could be allowed reductions by right, while larger projects should go through a variance process or undergo required assessments. 3.Develop a Sliding Scale for Reduced Parking Ratios A sliding scale for reduced parking ratios, based on the number of bedrooms, could help mitigate the impact of large-scale projects. For example, the reduction percentage could decrease as the number of bedrooms increases, as shown below: Office of the Fire Marshal 303 W. Center St. www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 # of Bedrooms Maximum Allowed Reduction Parking Assessment Required 0–40 25% YES 41–80 20% YES 81–120 15% YES Over 120 10% YES Such a system would still require developers to meet conditions for reductions, such as proximity to transit stops or provision of alternative parking options. 4.Create Parking Reduction Zones An overlay map of Fayetteville could designate areas suitable for parking reductions and areas where such reductions would be problematic. This map would need to be regularly updated, as an area may be able to absorb one development with reductions but not multiple projects. Current Challenges and Future Implications Currently, four new college housing projects are planned within a few blocks of City Hall, adding to an area that has two existing college housing complexes and currently struggles with parking enforcement and access issues. When completed, these six projects are expected to provide nearly 4,000 beds for college students, potentially resulting in a parking shortfall of 1,100–1,300 spaces. This situation could create problems that persist for decades. Enforcement is currently a challenge, primarily due to a lack of staff dedicated to parking enforcement. Fire, police, and parking management divisions do not have the necessary resources to address this issue effectively. To meet this need, any division tasked with enforcement would require a substantial budget increase. Consistent monitoring would be essential to ensure that fire access is not compromised. Closing Statement To address Fayetteville’s growing development challenges and ensure sustainable growth, it is imperative that the City revises its parking regulations. By implementing proactive measures— such as requiring comprehensive parking and safety evaluations, capping development sizes, creating a sliding scale for parking reductions, and designating parking reduction zones—the City can balance growth with the safety, accessibility, and quality of life for its residents. With thoughtful planning, Fayetteville can support both its expanding population and the long-term safety needs of its community. 3/5/2025 1 PARKING Ord. Rev. 2/26/25 2 Presentation Outline • Background • Current Residential Parking Requirements & By- Right Reductions • Recap of LRPC Meetings Oct-Feb • Additional Comments This Week • Current Draft Amendment 1 2 3/5/2025 2 3 Background •December 2009 • Overhaul of parking regulations • Consolidation of standards in Chapter 172 • Reorganized Chapter 172 • Ensuring pedestrian access • Refined motorcycle/scooter and bike rack standards •Addition of by-right reductions and increases 4 Background •January 7, 2025 City Council • UDC Amendment to residential parking reductions • Shift by-right allowance to Planning Commission approval • Reduce the overall, potential reduction from 35% to 30% • Increase the number of bike racks per space substituted from one to two • Developer limitation on “four-wheeled road vehicle” ownership • Transit reduction eligibility tied to frequency and hours of operation 3 4 3/5/2025 3 5 Background •January 7, 2025 City Council • Tabled indefinitely for staff, Planning Commission, and Ordinance Review Committee consideration 6 Current Residential Parking Requirements TABLE 3 PARKING RATIOS (Use/Required Spaces) Residential Single-family, duplex, triplex 2 per dwelling unit Multi-family or townhouse 1 per bedroom 5 6 3/5/2025 4 7 Current Parking Reductions 172.05(A)(2)(a) Reductions for Residential Use.Residential uses may utilize the following reductions to the minimum number required off-street parking ratios listed in Table 3 when the following standards are met: (i)Transit Stops.Properties located within a ¼ mile radius of a transit stop may further reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements by up to 15%. (ii)Motorcycle and Scooter Spaces.Up to 10% of the required automobile parking spaces may be substituted with motorcycle/scooter parking at a rate of one (1) motorcycle/scooter space for one (1) automobile space. ***Note: motorized, street legal scooters (iii)Bike Racks.Up to 10% of required automobile parking may be substituted with bicycle parking at a rate of one (1) additional bicycle rack for one (1) automobile space. This reduction shall be allowed in addition to other variances, reductions and shared parking agreements. Current Code: 8 Current Parking Reductions (iv)Shared Parking.Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. (1)Shared Parking Between Developments.Formal arrangements that share parking between intermittent uses with non-conflicting parking demands (e.g. a church and a bank) are encouraged as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. (2)Shared Parking Agreements.If a privately owned parking facility is to serve two (2) or more separate properties, then a "Shared Parking Agreement" is to be filed with the city for consideration by the Planning Commission. (3)Shared Spaces.Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one (1) user at the same time. Current Code: 7 8 3/5/2025 5 9 Current Parking Reductions 172.04(D) Compact Spaces. A maximum of 35% of the total spaces may be compact spaces. Compact spaces shall be marked either by marking on the pavement or by separate marker. Current Code: 10 Parking Meetings Recap October: • Several large new housing projects • 71B rezoning allowing large scale housing • parking reform conversations nationally • calibration of parking ratios • concerns about parking spillover into neighborhoods • parking enforcement and management • Initial ideas for solutions: • tweaking by-right reductions • revising minimums downward but not in isolation • creating more parking districts (to limit spillover) • encouraging/requiring more shared parking • enforcing existing rules • moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach 9 10 3/5/2025 6 11 Parking Meetings Recap November:we discussed redefining housing types, pain points for the development community, more nuanced parking reductions with a baseline of one parking space per bedroom, reductions based on a parking overlay district, comparable cities, and reductions. December:no meeting. January:we discussed problem definition, parking regulations, and parking reductions, as well as ways to categorize parking tools. 12 2/20/25 LRPC Meeting Recap Discussion points: • Change parking from by the bedroom to by the bathroom? • Reduce by-right parking reductions and move toward PC? • Review parking reductions with a Large Scale Development (LSD application)? • The scale feature of fire’s memo is good. Do not want to remove by-right parking reductions completely. • At what point should parking evaluations and/or parking management plans be required? • Quick introduction of draft amendments: • Support for striking motorcycle/scooter completely or adjusting it like bike racks. • Change table back to bedroom #s from unit #s. • Continue to offer highest reduction to smallest scale. 11 12 3/5/2025 7 13 Fire Department Memo 1. Require Parking and Safety Evaluations Upon Initial Submittal 2. Place a Cap on Development Size for Parking Reductions 3. Develop a Sliding Scale for Reduced Parking Ratios 4. Create Parking Reduction Zones Proposal: 14 Current Status of Parking Discussion From Planning Commissioners post-meeting: • Require bike parking to be covered/secured to count for reductions? • Add a bedroom to unit ratio for developments over 100 units to set the maximum reduction percentage, i.e.: - For 0-50 units - X% max reduction - For 51-100 units - X% max reduction - For 101-200 units and developments with 70 or more units where the overall bedroom to unit ratio exceeds 3:1 - X% max reduction - For 200 or more units and developments with 100 or more units where the overall bedroom to unit ratio exceeds 3:1 - X% max reduction 13 14 3/5/2025 8 15 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Compact Parking Spaces 172.04(D) Compact Spaces.A maximum of 35% of the total spaces may be compact spaces. Compact spaces are allowed for commercial uses only and may not be used for residential parking.Compact spaces shall be marked either by marking on the pavement or by separate marker. 16 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Reductions for Residential Use (i) Transit Stops.Properties located within a ¼ mile radius of a transit stop with a complete sidewalk or trail connection to the stop location may further reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements by up to 2015%. (ii) Motorcycle and Scooter Spaces.Up to 510% of the required automobile parking spaces may be substituted with motorcycle/scooter parking at a rate of three (3)one (1) motorcycle/scooter spaces for one (1) automobile space. (iii) Bike Racks.Up to 10% of required automobile parking may be substituted with bicycle parking at a rate of three (3)one (1) additional bicycle racks for one (1) automobile space. This reduction shall be allowed in addition to other variances, reductions and shared parking agreements. 15 16 3/5/2025 9 17 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Reductions for Residential Use (iv) Ride Share and Carpool Loading Zone. Up to 5% of required automobile parking may be substituted with a loading zone designated for rideshare, taxi, or carpool pickup and drop-off. This zone cannot conflict or overlap with fire lanes, emergency vehicle access, or aerial apparatus access. (v) Shared Parking.Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Zoning and Development Administrator if they meet the conditions below:(shortened for slide) (1) Shared Parking Between Developments (2)Shared Parking Agreements. (3)Shared Spaces.Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one (1) user at the same time. 18 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Reductions for Residential Use (vi) The maximum reductions for residential use shall be limited as follows: (1) Residential projects requesting parking reductions shall be evaluated for safety prior to approval. Evaluations shall consider factors such as abutting street widths, existing parking conditions, parking reductions claimed by nearby developments, potential impacts, including compounding impacts, on surrounding neighborhoods, density of existing buildings, and emergency vehicle access. (2) Developments with 0-50 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 25% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (3) Developments with 51-100 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 20% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. 17 18 3/5/2025 10 19 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Reductions for Residential Use (4) Developments with 100-200 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 15% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (5) Developments with 200 or more bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 10% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. 20 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Reductions for Residential Use – Example Calculations Number of Spaces Reduced Maximum % Reduction Allowed Parking Spaces RequiredBedrooms 1 – 1225%1 - 501 - 50 10 – 2020%51 - 10051 - 100 15 - 4015%100 – 200101 – 200 20 + (50 / 500 spaces) (80 / 800 spaces) 10%201 +201 + 19 20 3/5/2025 11 21 Current Reductions Allowed By Right Number of Spaces Reduced Maximum % Reduction Allowed Parking Spaces RequiredBedrooms 1 – 1735%1 - 501 - 50 17 – 3535%51 - 10051 - 100 35 - 7035%100 – 200101 – 200 70 + (175 / 500 spaces) (208 / 800 spaces) 35%201 +201 + 22 Draft Changes (Strikethrough Document) Motorcycle and Scooter Parking (6) Motorcycle and Scooter Parking. One (1) Motorcycle and scooter parking. In parking lots containing twenty-five (25) parking spaces or more, one (1) space for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces of the required number of parking spaces for a use or combination of uses shall be striped as a motorcycle and scooter parking space. Townhouse/Quadplex Parking TABLE 3 PARKING RATIOS (Use/Required Spaces) Residential Single-family, duplex, triplex, or quadplex 2 per dwelling unit Multi-family or townhouse 1 per bedroom 21 22 3/5/2025 12 23 Parking Concern Examples 24 Parking Concern Examples 23 24 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: RESIDENTIAL PARKING Created: 2025-01-02 08:10:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 1 of 5 172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (See: Illustration: Parking Dimension Factors) (A)Maneuvering. Parking lots shall be designated, maintained, and regulated so that no parking or maneuvering incidental to parking will encroach into the areas designated for sidewalks, streets, or required landscaping. Parking lots shall be designed so that parking and un-parking can occur without moving other vehicles, unless a valet service has been approved as part of the development plans. Vehicles shall exit the parking lot in a forward motion. (B)Pedestrian Access. (1)Pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the entrance of the structure by way of designated pathway or sidewalk. (2)Parking lots may be utilized by restaurants, cafes, and similar uses where pedestrian seating, access, or service does not interfere with safe and functional circulation. If a parking lot utilized for outdoor service is determined to represent a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular use, sites may be required to include an implied or physical barrier with landscaping elements, gated fencing, changes in ground surface texture, material or color, or similar treatments. (C)Build-to Zone. A portion of a required parking lot may be located within the build-to zone, subject to the following: (1)A parking lot located within the build-to zone shall be screened with a masonry screen wall between 32 inches and 42 inches in height and 50% opaque minimum. (2)Parking lots that are located within the build-to zone shall comply with Chapter 177: Landscape Regulations, related to landscape setbacks. (3)Off-site parking lots shall be prohibited from being located within the build-to zone. (4)In urban zoning districts that specify urban form (i.e., a build-to zone) the intent is for drive-thru lanes, parking lot drive aisles, and parking spaces to be located to the side or rear of buildings. In urban zoning districts, a drive-thru lane, parking lot drive aisle, or parking spaces are not permitted to be located in the front yard directly between a building and the Master Street Plan right-of-way. (D) Compact Spaces. A maximum of 35% of the total spaces may be compact spaces. Compact spaces are allowed for commercial uses only and may not be used for residential parking. Compact spaces shall be marked either by marking on the pavement or by separate marker. (E) Dimensional Requirements. (See Table 1) TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Angle (A) Type Width (in ft.) (B) Curb length (in ft.) (C) One-way aisle width (in ft.) (D) Two-way aisle width (in ft.) (D) Stall depth (in ft.) E) 0° Standard 8 22.5 12 24 8 Parallel Compact 7.5 19.5 12 24 7.5 30° Standard 9 18 12 24 17 Compact 7.5 15 12 24 14 45° Standard 9 12.5 12 24 19 Compact 7.5 10.5 12 24 16 Commented [BB1]: Rather than removing compact spaces for residential we could tier the percentages like the total reductions by number of bedrooms? Created: 2025-01-02 08:10:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 2 of 5 60° Standard 9 10.5 18 24 20 Compact 7.5 8.5 15 24 16.5 90° Standard 9 9 24 24 19 Compact 7.5 7.5 22 24 15 Motorcycle/Scooter 3 3 12-24 24 7.5 - 9 (F) Parking Lot Circulation. (1) Throat Length. The length of driveways or "throat length" shall be designed in accordance with the anticipated storage length for vehicles to prevent them from backing into the flow of traffic on the public street or causing unsafe conflicts with on-site circulation. General standards appear below, but these requirements may vary according to the project volume of the individual driveway. These measures generally are acceptable for the principal access to a property and are not intended for minor driveways. Variation from these standards may be permitted for good cause upon approval of the Zoning and Development Administrator and City Engineer. TABLE 2 GENERALLY ADEQUATE DRIVEWAY THROAT LENGTHS Shopping Centers (Signalized) >200,000 GLA* (800) spaces 200 ft. Smaller Developments (Signalized) <200,000 GLA* 75—95 ft. Unsignalized Driveways — 40—60 ft. *GLA-Gross leaseable area Created: 2025-01-02 08:10:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 3 of 5 Commentary: The throat lengths in Table 2 are provided to assure adequate stacking space within parking lot driveways for general land use intensities. This helps prevent vehicles from stacking into the thoroughfare as they attempt to enter the parking lot. High traffic generators, such as large shopping plazas, need much greater throat length than smaller developments or those with unsignalized driveways. The guidelines here for larger developments refer to the primary access drive. Reduced throat lengths may be permitted for secondary access drives serving large developments. (2) Drive-Through Facilities. All uses that include a drive-up window or are characterized by patrons remaining in their vehicles to receive service shall meet the following on-site stacking requirements in order to alleviate traffic congestions: (a) Restaurant, fast food: a minimum of four (4) spaces as measured from the drive-thru window (b) Vehicular washes: a minimum of two (2) spaces per car wash bay as measured from the bay. (c) Pharmacies and financial institutions: a minimum of four (4) spaces for one (1) drive-thru window, plus three (3) spaces for each additional drive-thru lane or automated teller machine (ATM), as measured from each drive-thru window. (d) Dry cleaning and laundry services: a minimum of two (2) spaces as measured from the drive-thru window. (3) Entrances and Internal Aisle Design for Parking Lots Containing 8 Parking Spaces or Less. The driveway width into parking lots shall meet the following requirements: (a) Entrances. (i) One-Way Access to Parking Lots. If the driveway is a one-way in or one-way out, then the driveway width shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet. Parking lots shall not be located more than 100 feet from the street right-of-way. Commercial solid waste service is required. (ii) Two-Way Access to Parking Lots. For two way access, the driveway width shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 24 feet. Parking lots shall not be located more than 100 feet from the street right-of-way. This standard shall only apply when a 2-yard dumpster is allowed. (iii) Driveway Width Requirements for Parking Lots Located 100 Feet or More from the Street Right-of-Way. Two (2) drive lanes a minimum width of 10 feet each, up to a maximum combined width of 24 feet, shall be required for adequate parking lot access. (iv) Effective Curb Radius. All driveway entrances serving 8 or less parking spaces shall have a minimum effective curb radius of 10 feet and a maximum of 20 feet. Created: 2025-01-02 08:10:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 4 of 5 (b) Internal aisle design. (i) Aisles shall be designed so that they intersect at 90 degrees with other aisles and driveways where practical. (ii) Aisles shall be designed to discourage cut-through traffic by use of landscape islands, and shall meet the requirements of Chapter 177: Landscape Regulations. (iii) Aisles shall conform to the dimensional requirements of §172.04(C). (c) Variances. Development proposals which do not meet these standards may apply for a variance from these requirements subject to Planning Commission approval. Parking Lots With Eight (8) Spaces or Less Driveway Dimensional Requirement One Way Access <100 feet 12 feet Minimum - 16 feet Maximum Two Way Access <100 feet 12 feet Minimum - 24 feet Maximum >100 feet Driveway Length 2 Drive Lanes 10 feet Minimum Each - 24 feet Maximum Total Driveway Width Effective Curb Radius 10 feet Minimum - 20 feet Maximum (4) Entrances and Internal Aisle Design for Parking Lots Containing Nine (9) or More Parking Spaces. The driveway width into parking lots shall meet the following requirements: (a) Entrances. (i) One-Way Access to Parking Lots. If the driveway is a one-way in or one-way out, then the driveway width shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet. (ii) Two-Way Access to Parking Lots. For two (2) way access, the driveway width shall be a minimum 20 feet and a maximum width of 24 feet, unless otherwise required by the Fire Department. (iii) Neighborhood and Regional Links. Driveways that enter neighborhood and regional link streets may be required to have two (2) outbound lanes (one (1) for each turning direction) and one (1) inbound lane for a maximum total driveway width of 39 feet. (iv) Effective Curb Radius. All driveways serving nine (9) or more parking spaces shall have an effective curb radius of 15 feet for curb cuts on residential link streets and an effective curb cut radius of 20 feet for neighborhood and regional link streets. (b) Internal Aisle Design. (i) Aisles shall be designed so that they intersect at 90 degrees with other aisles and driveways where practical. (ii) Aisles shall be designed to discourage cut-through traffic by use of landscape islands, and shall meet the requirements of Chapter 177: Landscape Regulations. (iii) Aisles shall conform to the dimensional requirements of §172.04(C). Parking Lots With Nine (9) Spaces or More Driveway Dimensional Requirement One Way Access 12 feet Minimum - 16 feet Maximum Created: 2025-01-02 08:10:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 5 of 5 Two Way Access 2 Drive Lanes 10 feet Minimum Each - 24 feet Maximum Total Driveway Width Neighborhood/Regional Link 3 Drive Lanes - Maximum of 39 feet Effective Curb Radius - Residential Link 15 feet Effective Curb Radius - Neighborhood/Regional Link 20 feet (FG) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi-Family, and Non-Residential Development. Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum Number of Spaces per Parking Lot for Multi-Family and Non-Residential Uses. Parking pads shall have a maximum of thirty (30) spaces per pad. (4) Parking Lot Location. Parking lots shall be set back with a minimum of 35 feet of undisturbed area required adjacent to the street right-of-way. (5) Multi-Family and Non-Residential Uses. Developers of multi-family and non-residential uses in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. (Ord. No. 4725, 7-19-05; Ord. No. 4855, 4-18-06; Ord. No. 4917, 9-05-06; Ord. No. 5044, 8-07-07; Ord. No. 5079, 11-20-07; Ord. No. 5297, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 5592, 06-18-13; Ord. No. 5680, 4-15-14; Ord. No. 5841, §§1—3, 1-5- 16; Ord. No. 5859, §2, 3-15-16; Ord. No. 6325, §1, 6-16-20; Ord. No. 6350, §9(Exh. G), 8-18-20) Page 1 of 3 172.05 Standards For The Number Of Spaces By Use (A) Required Parking. (1) Non-Residential Use. There shall be no minimum number of spaces required for non-residential use. The maximum number of spaces provided shall be limited based onto the ratios in Table 3 and the allowable increases over the baseline ratio as described in subsection 172.05(3). The applicant shall provide a statement or parking analysis indicating how they will provide adequate parking for the proposed non-residential use to succeed without negatively impacting adjacent properties or creating or compounding a dangerous traffic condition. (2) Residential. The minimum and maximum number of spaces required for residential use shall conform to the parking ratios listed in Table 3. The minimum and maximum number of spaces required for a use not specifically included in this section shall be as required for the most similar use listed or as otherwise determined by the Planning Division utilizing reference standards. For multi-family residential uses the applicant shall provide a statement or parking analysis indicating how they will provide adequate parking for the proposed non-residential use to succeed without negatively impacting adjacent properties or creating or compounding a dangerous traffic condition. (a) Reductions for Residential Use. Residential uses may utilize the following reductions to the minimum number required off-street parking ratios listed in Table 3 when the following standards are met: (i) Transit Stops. Properties located within a ¼ mile radius of a transit stop with a complete and well-maintained sidewalk or trail connection to the stop location may further reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements by up to 15%. (ii) Motorcycle and Scooter Spaces. Up to 310% or a maximum of seven (7) spaces, whichever is less, of the required automobile parking spaces may be substituted with motorcycle/scooter parking at a rate of threeone (31) motorcycle/scooter spaces for one (1) automobile space. (iii) Bike Racks. Up to 510% of required automobile parking may be substituted with bicycle parking at a rate of threeone (31) additional bicycle racks for one (1) automobile space. To qualify for a reduction the bicycle parking spaces must be covered and secured. This reduction shall be allowed in addition to other variances, reductions and shared parking agreements. (iv) Ride Share and Carpool Loading Zone. Up to 3% or a maximum of four (4) spaces, whichever is less, of required automobile parking may be substituted with a loading zone designated for rideshare, taxi, or carpool pickup and drop-off. This zone cannot conflict or overlap with fire lanes, emergency vehicle access, or aerial apparatus access. (iv) Shared Parking. Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commissionmay be approved by the Zoning and Development Administrator if they meet the conditions below.: (1) Shared Parking Between Developments. Formal arrangements that share parking between intermittent uses with non-conflicting parking demands (e.g. a church and a bank) are encouraged allowed as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. (2) Shared Parking Agreements. If a privately owned parking facility is to serve two (2) or more separate properties, then a "Shared Parking Agreement" is to be Commented [BB1]: Copied from section above. Commented [BB2]: Would Council Members be willing to consider changing these reductions from being the basis of by-right reduction calculations and instead use only the total reductions allowed on the next page in (2)(a)(vi) and change these to factors for the Planning Commission to consider for a parking variance? Commented [BB3]: Addition from Council Member Turk. Staff would like to get more clarity on what condition would be considered well-maintained. Commented [BB4]: Addition from Council Member Wiederkehr. Commented [BB5]: Additions from Council Members Turk and Wiederkehr. Commented [BB6]: Addition from Council Member Wiederkehr. Commented [BB7]: Opportunity to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with UDC Sec. 155.06(C)(2). Page 2 of 3 filed with the city for consideration by the Planning CommissionZoning and Development Administrator. (3) Shared Spaces. Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one (1) user at the same time. (vi) The maximum reductions for residential use shall be limited as follows: (1) Residential projects requesting parking reductions shall be evaluated for safety and factors specific to the neighborhood prior to approval of the reductions. Evaluations shall consider factors such as abutting street widths, existing parking conditions, parking reductions already claimed by nearby residential and commercial developments, potential and compounding impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and commercial districts, existing use of on-street parking, capacity for additional on-street parking, density of existing buildings, emergency vehicle access, and whether existing properties have off-street parking available. (2) Developments with 1-50 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 20% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (3) Developments with 51-100 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 17% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (4) Developments with 101-200 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 14% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (5) Developments with 201 or more bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 10% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (6) Multi-family and mixed-use developments that include multi-family along N. College Ave. and S. School Ave. within the Urban Corridor (UC) zoning district shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 35% of the total spaces required regardless of the number of bedrooms in the development without approval by the Planning Commission. (3) Maximum Number of Parking Spaces Allowed for Residential and Non-Residential Uses. Residential and non-residential developments may utilize the following increases to the maximum number of allowed required spaces listed in Table 3 when the following standards are met: (a) Developments may increase the number of off-street parking spaces by up to 15% above the parking ratios listed in Table 3. (b) Developments may increase the number of off-street parking spaces by up to an additional 10% when alternative stormwater treatment techniques are utilized, such as: (i) Bioswales (ii) Constructed wetlands (iii) Pervious pavement (iv) Other such techniques that aid in improving water quality and quantity as approved by the City Engineer (c) Developments may increase the number of off-street parking spaces by up to an additional 5% when one (1), 2-inch caliper tree for every ten (10) additional parking spaces is planted on-site in addition to all other landscaping requirements. Commented [BB8]: Option to have compact spaces allowed tiered like by reductions by total number of bedrooms? Commented [BB9]: Revised to capture suggestions from Council Members Turk, Wiederkehr, and Berna. I would like to ask at the meeting if this section could be replaced by the addition of text here or in the paragraph for residential parking at the top of the first page that states: “The applicant shall provide a statement or parking analysis indicating how they will provide adequate parking for the proposed residential use to succeed without negatively impacting adjacent properties or creating or compounding a dangerous traffic condition.” Commented [BB10]: Percentages adjusted on suggestion of Council Member Wiederkehr. Commented [BB11]: Added in response to suggestions by Council Members Turk and Wiederkehr. Page 3 of 3 (4) Parking Ratio Calculation. The number of spaces required for a use not specifically included in Table 3 shall be as required for the most similar use listed or as otherwise determined by the City Planning Division utilizing industry standards. For all parking space requirements resulting in a fraction, the fraction shall be: (a) Rounded to the next higher whole number when the fraction is 0.5 or higher. (b) Rounded to the next lower whole number when the fraction is less than 0.5. 5) On-Street Parking. Each on-street parking space adjacent to a project frontage that complies with adopted fire code may count toward the parking requirements for all development. The approval of on-street parking is subject to approval by the Zoning and Development Administrator. (5) On- Street Parking. Each permitted on-street parking space adjacent to a project frontage may count toward the parking requirements for all development. The approval of on-street parking is subject to approval by the Zoning and Development Administrator. (6) Motorcycle and Scooter Parking. One (1) Motorcycle and scooter parking. In parking lots containing twenty-five (25) parking spaces or more, one (1) space for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces of the required number of parking spaces for a use or combination of uses shall be striped as a motorcycle and scooter parking space. (7) Increases or reductions in excess of those identified herein shall be allowed only by the Planning Commission as a variance and shall be granted in accordance with Chapter 156.03. The Planning Commission shall be limited to granting a maximum reduction of 10% additional spaces to the reductions permitted by this section. TABLE 3 PARKING RATIOS (Use/ and Required Minimum and Maximum Spaces) Residential Residential Use Type Minimum Parking Spaces Required Maximum Parking Spaces Allowed Single-family, duplex, triplex 2 per dwelling unit None Duplex, triplex, or quadplex 2 per dwelling unit 4 per dwelling unit Townhouse 2 per dwelling unit or one per bedroom, whichever is greater 1 per bedroom Multi-family or townhouse 1 per bedroom 1 per bedroom Commented [BB12]: Staff proposing change to clarify requirements and expectation as “permitted on-street parking space” indicates a permit is required or applicable. Commented [BB13]: Addition from Council Member Wiederkehr. Commented [BB14]: I am proposing to expand this table to clearly identify residential parking minimums and maximums as our parking requirements currently act as both. Non-residential parking requirements in the rest of Table 3 (not included because of the length of those tables) are MAXIMUMS, not minimums as we do not have non- residential minimums. Formatted Table Formatted Table Page 1 of 1 172.06 Parking Lot Location Standards The location of all required and nonrequired parking lots with five (5) or more spaces shall meet the location requirements below. All conditional uses hereunder shall be granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 163, governing applications of conditional uses; procedures. (A) Permitted Locations by Right. Parking lots shall be located within the same zoning district as the use they serve. Required parking lots for uses allowed by right within a zoning district are allowed as a use by right in the same zoning district. (B) Permitted Locations as a Conditional Use. (1) Parking lots located within residential zones which serve uses in nonresidential zones may be allowed as a conditional use by the Planning Commission. (2) Parking lots for uses allowed as conditional uses within residential zones must also be approved as a conditional use. A conditional use for a parking lot may be approved at the same time the use is approved or may be approved separately if additional parking lots are developed later. The Planning Commission shall make a finding based upon the size, scale, and location of these activities that the proposed parking lot will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses or the residential character of the neighborhood. (C) Off-Site Locations. If off-street parking cannot be provided on the same lot as the principal use due to existing buildings, or the shape of the parcel, or lot configuration, parking lots may be located on other property not more than 600 feet distant from the principal use, subject to conditional use approval by the Zoning and Development AdministratorPlanning Commission. (D) Intermittent Parking. Uses which generate only intermittent demand for parking, such as churches, may count available on-street parking within 600 feet of the building as part of required parking, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. PARKING Ord. Rev. 3/12/25 2 Presentation Outline •Recap of background and draft edits presented at Feb. meeting •Example multi-family development parking •Summary of input incorporated for current draft •Updated reduction calculations for current draft •Staff comments and concerns 3 Background •December 2009 •Overhaul of parking regulations •Consolidation of standards in Chapter 172 •Reorganized Chapter 172 •Ensuring pedestrian access •Refined motorcycle/scooter and bike rack standards •Addition of by-right reductions and increases 15 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Compact Parking Spaces 172.04(D) Compact Spaces.A maximum of 35% of the total spaces may be compact spaces. Compact spaces are allowed for commercial uses only and may not be used for residential parking.Compact spaces shall be marked either by marking on the pavement or by separate marker. 16 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use (i)Transit Stops.Properties located within a ¼ mile radius of a transit stop with a complete sidewalk or trail connection to the stop location may further reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements by up to 2015%. (ii)Motorcycle and Scooter Spaces.Up to 510% of the required automobile parking spaces may be substituted with motorcycle/scooter parking at a rate of three (3)one (1)motorcycle/scooter spaces for one (1) automobile space. (iii)Bike Racks.Up to 10% of required automobile parking may be substituted with bicycle parking at a rate of three (3)one (1)additional bicycle racks for one (1) automobile space. This reduction shall be allowed in addition to other variances, reductions and shared parking agreements. 17 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use (iv) Ride Share and Carpool Loading Zone. Up to 5% of required automobile parking may be substituted with a loading zone designated for rideshare, taxi, or carpool pickup and drop-off. This zone cannot conflict or overlap with fire lanes, emergency vehicle access, or aerial apparatus access. (v) Shared Parking.Parking requirements may be shared where it can be determined that the peak parking demand of the existing or proposed occupancy occur at different times (either daily or seasonally). Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Zoning and Development Administrator if they meet the conditions below:(shortened for slide) (1)Shared Parking Between Developments (2)Shared Parking Agreements. (3)Shared Spaces.Individual spaces identified on a site plan for shared users shall not be shared by more than one (1) user at the same time. 18 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use (vi) The maximum reductions for residential use shall be limited as follows: (1)Residential projects requesting parking reductions shall be evaluated for safety prior to approval. Evaluations shall consider factors such as abutting street widths, existing parking conditions, parking reductions claimed by nearby developments, potential impacts, including compounding impacts, on surrounding neighborhoods, density of existing buildings, and emergency vehicle access. (2)Developments with 0-50 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 25% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (3)Developments with 51-100 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 20% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. 19 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use (4)Developments with 100-200 bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 15% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. (5)Developments with 200 or more bedrooms shall be allowed a maximum reduction of 10% of the total required spaces without approval by the Planning Commission. 20 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Motorcycle and Scooter Parking (6)Motorcycle and Scooter Parking. One (1) Motorcycle and scooter parking. In parking lots containing twenty-five (25) parking spaces or more, one (1) space for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces of the required number of parking spaces for a use or combination of uses shall be striped as a motorcycle and scooter parking space. Townhouse/Quadplex Parking TABLE 3 PARKING RATIOS (Use/Required Spaces) Residential Single-family, duplex, triplex, or quadplex 2 per dwelling unit Multi-family or townhouse 1 per bedroom 21 Current Reductions Allowed By Right Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required Maximum % Reduction Allowed Number of Spaces Reduced 1 -50 1 -50 35%1 –17 51 -100 51 -100 35%17 –35 101 –200 100 –200 35%35 -70 201 +201 +35%70 + (175 / 500 spaces) (280 / 800 spaces) 22 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use –Example Calculations Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required Maximum % Reduction Allowed Number of Spaces Reduced 1 -50 1 -50 25%1 –12 51 -100 51 -100 20%10 –20 101 –200 100 –200 15%15 -40 201 +201 +10%20 + (50 / 500 spaces) (80 / 800 spaces) 23 Example Multi-Family Development Parking The Marshall: •650 bedrooms •500 parking spaces provided •transit reduction 97 spaces •bike rack reduction 65 spaces •scooter/motorcycle 27 spaces •compact parking 156 spaces 24 Example Multi-Family Development Parking The Verve: •847 bedrooms •554 parking spaces provided •transit reduction 101 spaces •bike rack reduction 85 spaces •scooter/motorcycle 84 spaces •compact parking 170 spaces 25 Example Multi-Family Development Parking Smyth Cluster Housing: •58 bedrooms •46 parking spaces provided •transit reduction 5 spaces •bike rack reduction 4 spaces •scooter/motorcycle reduction 3 spaces 26 Example Multi-Family Development Parking The Resort at Markham Hill: •482 bedrooms •516 parking spaces provided •(no reductions) •bike racks 14 spaces •scooter/motorcycle 22 spaces 27 Example Multi-Family Development Parking Beechwood Village: •682 bedrooms •668 parking spaces provided •bike racks 33 •scooter/motorcycle 27 spaces •compact parking 215 spaces 28 Example Multi-Family Development Parking Retreat at Fayetteville: •594 bedrooms •605 parking spaces provided •bike racks 17 •scooter/motorcycle 9 spaces 29 Example Multi-Family Development Parking University House: •654 bedrooms •737 parking spaces provided •bike racks 8 •scooter/motorcycle 27 spaces 30 Example Multi-Family Development Parking SouthYard: •245 bedrooms •364 parking spaces provided •bike racks 21 •scooter/motorcycle 18 spaces •compact parking 98 spaces •286 spaces identified for commercial 31 Example Multi-Family Development Parking Uptown: •464 bedrooms •478 parking spaces provided •bike racks 15 •scooter/motorcycle 20 spaces •70 spaces for commercial 32 Input Since 2.25.25 Meeting •Adjustments to reduction ratios and total reductions allowed •Changes to how parking is evaluated •Clarification on parking minimums and maximums •Reductions specific to 71B and UC zoning district •Clarification on on-street parking allowed •Limits on reduction available to Planning Commission •Expanded residential parking requirements table 33 2.25.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use –Example Calculations Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required Maximum % Reduction Allowed Number of Spaces Reduced 1 -50 1 -50 25%1 –12 51 -100 51 -100 20%10 –20 101 –200 100 –200 15%15 -40 201 +201 +10%20 + (50 / 500 spaces) (80 / 800 spaces) 34 3.12.25 Draft Changes (Strikethrough) Reductions for Residential Use –Example Calculations Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required Maximum % Reduction Allowed Number of Spaces Reduced 1 -50 1 -50 20%1 –10 51 -100 51 -100 17%9 –17 101 –200 100 –200 14%14 -28 201 +201 +10%20 + (50 / 500 spaces) (80 / 800 spaces)