Parking...everyone's favorite topic

First things first. We can't do without parking. The question then becomes how to deal with parking in such a way that it doesn't destroy the aesthetics of our place. Today's Spring Hill commercial district is a sea of parking spaces with asphalt from one corner to another. While being convenient for stop-in traffic, it actually discourages people from wanting to spend time shopping, working, and dining in Spring Hill. To make matters worse, every single parcel has excess parking, so there is tremendous waste when viewed district wide. The high number of vacant properties is testament that the suburban model isn't viable in the heart of Spring Hill. Property values are already too high to allow for excess surface parking. Something's got to give.


We've all seen the before and after computer renderings that Dover, Kohl & Partners prepared during the community planning process, and the results are amazing. The most visually different component in those images is the change in parking. Parking lots are located behind buildings, and on-street parking provides a traffic calming and pedestrian friendly form. As discussed in other blog entries, building placement toward the street means that parking, by default, is located to the rear. And as the Blueprint shows, street parking is planned for both Old Shell Road and McGregor Avenue. Some of the planned street changes are already being discussed with the City.

In terms of the number of parking spaces, two things are important to note. First, current required minimums generate too much parking in Spring Hill. Second, the process for sharing parking between properties is very cumbersome. To address these, the proposed zoning sets as maximums the values that the City has as minimums elsewhere. Generally speaking, these are 1 space per 300 square feet of commercial space (or 1 for 100 square feet for restaurants). The proposed overlay recommends removing the minimums altogether---i.e., no required parking---although there are some ongoing discussions with the City about using the Hank Aaron Loop requirements as minimums. These are essentially half of the normal values (1 per 600 square feed). Needless to say, the minimums will be significantly less, which is especially beneficial for some of the smaller parcels in Spring Hill that have a very difficult time meeting current parking requirements and providing enough usable commercial space.

So another often-asked question is why the Village is requiring parking garages---as well as who is going to pay for them. The answer is that no parking garages are required, ever. The plan shows several parking structures, and at some point in time, the market may find it economically viable to build them. But that will only happen if/when the market is ready. If property values continue to rise and commercial space is worth significantly more than it is today, the cost of surface parking will become prohibitive and a deck or garage may become justified. The point is that we can't presuppose what the exact arrangement between commercial space and parking availability will look like ten or twenty years from now. What we can do, and what's done in the overlay, is to allow structured parking without maximums so long as it's used as a district solution. The overlay also allows for and encourages shared parking and includes on-street parking to augment privately owned space.

As a point of reference, Fairhope's parking regulations for its central business district have no minimum number of required spaces. Additionally, they set a maximum value at 20% above the spaces required elsewhere in the city (and that additional 20% has to be constructed of pervious materials). See Fairhope's regulations for more information.