Skip to code content (skip section selection)
Compare to:

You are viewing an archived code

Loading...
   59-E-3.32.    Credits for specified commercial uses.
   (a)   For general retail uses, regional shopping centers, restaurants, theatres, furniture stores and auxiliary retail uses, the director may approve a 15 percent reduction in the standard parking requirements provided in section 59-E-3.7. This reduction is allowed if the entrance of the proposed use is located within 1,600 feet of a metrorail station entrance as defined in section 59-E-3.21.
   (b)   For regional shopping centers, off-site parking spaces may be allowed under the following circumstances:
      (1)   The off-site parking facility shall be used only by employees of the regional shopping center during seasonal peak periods to help satisfy peak parking requirements.
      (2)   The off-site parking facility will contain no more than 20 percent of the total parking spaces provided for the regional shopping center; and
      (3)   The director/planning board finds that there are appropriate contractual or lease agreements guaranteeing the continued availability, for specified peak shopping periods, of such off-site parking spaces for the regional shopping center. In addition, the director/planning board must find that appropriate administrative mechanisms exist to ensure that employees will be required to use the off-site parking facility during specified peak shopping periods.
   59-E-3.33.    Credits for specified residential uses.
   (a)   For multiple-family dwelling units, townhouses, fourplex units, and individual living units in personal living quarters, the director/planning board may approve a 10 percent reduction in the standard parking requirement provided in section 59-E-3.7, if such units are located within a central business district or transit station development area. A 5 percent reduction is also allowed where such units are located within 1,600 feet of a metrorail station entrance as defined in section 59-E-3.21. This credit does not apply to parking for housing for senior adults or persons with disabilities or a life care facility that is constructed in accordance with the credit provisions enumerated in Paragraph (b), below.
   (b)   For housing and related facilities for senior adults and persons with disabilities, the Director/Planning Board may approve reductions in the standard parking requirements contained in Section 59-E-3.7. Any reductions granted must be in accordance with the following parking credit schedule, which must be applied sequentially, with succeeding percentages applying to the balance:
 
(1)
Located within 1,000 feet of Metrorail station entrance:
5%
(2)
Provision of private shuttle bus service for a minimum of 7 years, with a schedule assured by: 1) a special exception granted in accordance with Section 59-G-2.35 or 59-G-2.35.1; or 2) a condition of site plan approval.  Continued shuttle bus service after that period is subject to the parking needs of the specific project, as determined by the Board of Appeals, Planning Board or Director:
10%
(3)
Provision of units that are required to be at or below the price levels for moderately priced dwelling units specified in accordance with Chapter 25A of this Code:
up to 20%1
(4)
Facilities or programs for assisted living, including a dining facility large enough to serve meals to at least 50 percent of the residents, that are assured by a special exception granted in accordance with Section 59-G-2.35 or 59-G-2.35.1 or by a similar long-term agreement:
20%
 
1   The percentage reduction must be no greater than the percentage of price-controlled dwelling units in the facility.
   Any credit granted for a life care facility approved in accordance with Section 59-G-2.35.1 applies to the computation of the requirement for the dwelling units only and not to the requirement for the nursing home.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, § 11; Ord. No. 10-63, § 1; Ord. No. 11-72, § 10; Ord. No. 11-73, §11; Ord. No. 12-49, § 1; Ord. No. 13-46, § 7; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 15-26, § 3.)
Sec. 59-E-3.4. Off-site parking spaces.
   (a)   Generally, off-site parking spaces for development constructed in accordance with a building permit filed after June 28, 1984, may be approved by the director/planning board if (1) the development is in a parking lot district; or (2) the property proposed to be used for such required parking is plat-restricted, deed-restricted or is a meeting center restricted under a joint use agreement subject to (b) below. The restrictions must specify that the property provides the required parking spaces for a use on another property. Such restrictions may be lifted if substitute off-site or leased property is found or if the use ceases to exist.
   (b)   Joint parking areas are permitted for meeting centers subject to acceptance by the Director of a contractual joint use agreement in accordance with the following:
      (1)   The operations sharing the joint use will be subject to the requirements of Sec. 59-E-3.1 Mixed uses.
      (2)   The properties used for such joint use will be under the unified control of the parties concerned with such joint use and are subject to a written joint use agreement to be submitted with a parking facilities plan. The minimum term for the joint use agreement must be five years.
      (3)   Agreement by both parties in a joint use arrangement to immediately notify the Director of any changes to the joint use arrangement and provide the Director with at least one (1) month notification of any pending termination of the agreement.
      (4)   Agreement by any applicant under such a joint use arrangement to immediately cease or limit his use as required should the joint use arrangement be nullified and sufficient alternate parking not be found before the end of the one (1) month notification period.
      (5)   A subsequent change in use or in the joint use agreement requires a new use and occupancy permit, and proof that sufficient parking will be available.
   (c)   Where existing off-site parking spaces that provide required parking for a use constructed in accordance with a building permit filed prior to June 28, 1984 are eliminated, the owner shall comply with one of the following conditions:
      (1)   Build or lease the additional required parking spaces in order to conform with the parking requirements of this article.
      (2)   If located within a parking lot district, satisfy condition (1) above or pay the annual ad valorem tax.
      (3)   If applicable, take advantage of credit schedules contained in section 59-E-3.3 in order to reduce the amount of parking required.
   (d)   Failure to comply with subsection (c) above within one year of termination of the required off-site parking shall be cause to classify the use on the applicable property as nonconforming, so long as the use satisfied all lawful requirements in effect prior to June 28, 1984.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, § 11; Ord. No. 13-58, § 4.)
   Note-See the Editor's note to § 59-E-3.7.
Sec. 59-E-3.5. Computing number of employees.
For the purpose of this article, the number of employees shall be the average number of persons to be employed taking into consideration day, night and seasonal variations.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, § 11.)
Sec. 59-E-3.6. Conflict in requirements.
Whenever, in this chapter, a particular zone contains requirements for parking areas, or there are other provisions which vary from the provisions of this article, the more restrictive requirement shall apply.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 10-32, § 11.)
   Editor’s note-Section 59-E-3.6 [formerly §104-16] is cited in Montgomery County v. Greater Colesville Citizens Association, 70 Md.App. 374, 521 A.2d 770 (1968); and in Begenho v. Montgomery County Council, 248 Md. 386, 237 A.2d 53 (1968).  Section 59-E-3.6 [formerly §§ 104-13A and 111-16] is interpreted in Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 249 Md. 334, 239 A.2d 740 (1968).  Section 59-E-3.6 [formerly § 104-13] is quoted in Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 52, 225 A.2d 294 (1966); and is cited in Beall v. Montgomery County Council, 240 Md. 77, 212 A.2d 751 (1965).
Loading...