Attachment F - PC Minutes-Info - Z-TA-8-23-Y.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
14885 characters
Phoenix, Arizona June 1, 2023 The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Commissioners present participated in the meeting both in- person and virtually from a remote location. Present: Commissioner Emilio Gaynor, (Acting Chairman) Commissioner Ryan A. Boyd, (Acting Vice-Chairman) Commissioner Marcia Busching (Virtual) Commissioner Pete Gorraiz Commissioner Gabriel Jaramillo (Virtual) Commissioner Lachele Mangum Commissioner Lisa Perez Commissioner Shannon Simon Absent: Commissioner Nico Howard, Chairman Also Present: Ms. Racelle Escolar, Planner Principal Ms. Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director, PDD Mr. Greg Harmon, Planner I Ms. Vikki Cipolla-Murillo, Secretary III/Council Reporter At the request of Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor, Ms. Racelle Escolar, Staff Liaison, read the hybrid meeting introduction. She welcomed everyone to the Planning Commission Hearing and stated that all attendees who were participating virtually and requested to speak would remain muted until called on to speak. Speakers experiencing audio issues were asked to switch their audio connection to have WebEx call them. She stated that all individuals speaking virtually at the meeting tonight had contacted staff within the required timeframe prior to the start of the meeting. Those who did not contact staff, wishing to speak, were asked to contact her after the meeting to discuss the next steps and future opportunities to speak regarding any items on the agenda. She provided her contact information, via phone at 602-534-2864 and email at racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov, which was also listed on the bottom of the public meeting notice for the meeting. She asked those attending the meeting from the Council Chambers to complete a speaker card and provide it to one of the staff members. *** Acting Chairman Gaynor asked Acting Vice-Chair Boyd to read the opening remarks. *** Acting Chairman Gaynor asked the audience to follow the General Rules of Order for the meeting: ATTACHMENT F Planning Commission Hearing Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023 Page 102 of 107 16. INFORMATION ONLY: Z-TA-8-23-Y: Presentation and discussion regarding a request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 16 is an information presentation regarding Z-TA-8-23-Y, a request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Tricia Gomes, the Deputy Director, presented this item. Ms. Gomes stated that Z-TA-8-23-Y encompasses parking reductions for affordable and multifamily housing, including parking reductions for multifamily developments (City-wide), reductions for affordable housing (City-wide), reductions for Infill Development District (IDD), and reductions for Walkable Urban (WU) Code. Ms. Gomes stated that currently multifamily parking requirements (City-wide) are based on the number of bedrooms. The current requirement is 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms. When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 1.0 space per each 3- or more bedroom unit. It is somewhat long and complex. Staff is trying to reduce City-wide multifamily parking down to 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, regardless of number of bedrooms. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must remain “unreserved”, and would not be assigned to any one unit. Anyone could park there, whether they are a guest or another person living in the development. She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units: x Current Requirements: 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per dwelling units, 150 unreserved (part of total) @ 0.5 per dwelling unit. x Proposed Requirements: 375 total spaces @ 1.25 per dwelling unit 113 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required. Ms. Gomes stated that currently there is no differentiation for affordable multifamily housing (City-wide). It would be the same parking counts that were just discussed, per the number of bedrooms in that unit, proposing the same 1.25 calculation. Plus, for affordable housing, there is a 50% reduction, in addition. She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, all qualifying as “affordable housing”: x Current Requirements: (same as City-wide) 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per dwelling unit and 150 unreserved (part of total @ 0.5 dwelling units. x Proposed Requirements: (50% reduction) 188 total spaces @ 1.25 per dwelling unit x 50% and 57 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required. Planning Commission Hearing Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023 Page 103 of 107 Ms. Gomes stated, within the Infill Development District (IDD), currently you can only get a parking reduction for multifamily if you are counting on-street parking. That is for the distance of your project adjacent to the right-of-way. If there is 100 feet of frontage on your property, divide that by 22 feet due to parallel parking, and that is how many spaces you can count and how many can be reduced for on-street parking. For the proposed requirement within the Infill Development District, there is a 50% reduction off that 1.25 parking calculation. This area typically falls along or near the transit areas, as well. She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units. It is the same as the affordable housing. x Proposed Requirements: 188 spaces, @ 1.25 per dwelling unit x 50% Ms. Gomes stated, for the Walkable Urban Code, the current requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is 0.5 for market-rate housing per dwelling unit. You get an additional 25% reduction when you are within a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) of the light-rail station, or you get 10% if you are greater than a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) from the light-rail station. The current multifamily parking requirement is with the 25 and 10 %. Staff is proposing a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit parking requirement for those located within the Walkable Urban Code. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must remain “unreserved”, and not assigned to a particular unit or the leasing office. She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2- bedroom units. x Current Requirements: 338 total spaces @ the 1.5 % for a 1- to 2- bedroom vs. proposed text amendment x Proposed Requirements: 150 total spaces @ 0.5 per dwelling unit 45 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable housing, Walkable Urban Code does have provisions for affordable in the different transects. They are proposing ‘no parking required within those transects’, for affordable housing within the Walkable Urban Code. T3 is the only exception because it is very similar to a single-family development. Multifamily is not allowed in that transect. She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, all affordable. There are no parking requirements. x Current Requirements: (T5 transect example)150 total spaces @ 0.5 per dwelling units and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required x Proposed Requirements: (T5 transect example) 0 total spaces @ none required and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required Planning Commission Hearing Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023 Page 104 of 107 Ms. Gomes stated, in response to that and understanding that passenger loading zone requirements have been proposed in the Walkable Urban Code, people are going to be coming to their homes and developments in a variety of different ways, whether it is light-rail, ride-share, taxis, etc. The City wants to provide and ensure that there is an area for that drop-off and pick-up for pedestrians happening on the site. Ms. Gomes stated that passenger loading zones are a new requirement for sites zoned WU Code only. They provide designated area(s) for ride-share, pick- up/drop-off, and personal delivery services (package delivery; meal delivery). Loading zones are encouraged to locate on site but may be located on the street when approved by the Street Transportation Department. This is difficult because there must be room in the right-of-way, depending on the type of street. They are looking for it to be provided onsite. Accessibility requirements apply per Federal ADA regulations. The proposal is one passenger loading zone per 50 dwelling units; so, depending on the number of units, there will be a larger space for a larger passenger loading zone. Ms. Gomes displayed an example of what that would look like. The minimum requirement is 23 feet for a parallel parking space to be able to pull in and backing out of the space. Lastly, she provided upcoming meeting dates: x Planning Commission (information): June 2023 x Villages (information): June 2023 x Villages (action): July 2023 x Planning Commission (action): August 2023 x City Council Hearing: September 2023 Acting Chairman Gaynor asked if there were questions. Commissioner Busching stated that there is a new movement going on to reduce parking spaces. She asked where the numbers came from and if there were comparisons done with other cities. She also asked if other cities have experiences with these numbers. She wanted some background and history behind the thinking of the numbers. Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived at the 1.25 number in working with the Traffic Department and looking at ITE data on suburban and urban developments for a multifamily. Commissioner Busching stated that she does not know what ITE is, and she does not know where all the other parking reductions are, other than the 1.25. Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived the 1.25 number from the initial review with Traffic Department staff while looking at their manuel for typical demands for parking, for these types of developments. Staff’s focus was to reduce the parking to one space per unit. The 0.25 is for visitors and leasing. That is how they derived the 1.25. They looked at demand and what they were trying to achieve, regarding the number of parking spaces per unit. Planning Commission Hearing Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023 Page 105 of 107 Ms. Gomes stated that the 50%, reduction within their Infill Development District today is an allowance that the developer can do. It is a 50% reduction, but it is only counting those spaces on-street. The Street Transportation Department is hearing a lot of push-back from communities to have on-street parking, which is resulting in no longer providing the space for bike lanes or creating conflicts for bike lanes. They looked at that. It is really to achieve two goals within the City: 1) to provide the bike lanes, and 2) to offset the parking reduction onsite for properties. By taking away or modifying those parking reductions for on-street, to allow for those bike lanes, it is providing that parking reduction onsite. That is where the 50% comes from. Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable to zero, Walkable Urban Code, already had a significant parking reduction. They were directed by City Council to look at eliminating those parking requirements for affordable, because staff is trying to focus on the items that are creating additional costs and challenges for affordable developments. Commissioner Busching thanked Ms. Gomes and said the information was very helpful. Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd stated that he was quite excited to hear this. ITE stands for Institute of Transportation Engineers. He said it is not just the hippie bike people, these are the full-on professional, do-all-the-fun traffic, people. He wanted to add two important points of context. Firstly, these are the minimums. Developers can and likely will still go above those minimums, as we see in almost every project. This is just them not being penalized from a legal perspective, if you wanted to try to do something like a cul-de-sac in Tempe, zero parking for the units there. There are a few shared parking spots on their development. It would not be possible in Phoenix without some creative zoning. Secondly, there are, in fact, neighbors to the north. Prescott has one of these. Work-force housing has a different parking ratio that is lower than their normal parking ratio. Flagstaff has an incentive program for their affordable housing that includes the reduction of parking. These are not new concepts. They are in Arizona and have been in play before. He was excited to hear how this is going to go through. It will be interesting to see how this debate proceeds. Commissioner Perez asked if this goes through the process and gets approved in September, if there would be a mad rush of all the cases that have been approved, asking for variances to reduce their parking. Right now, they would all be stipulated to certain parking spaces. She asked how that would work. Ms. Gomes responded, if there are current stipulation requirements, whether it is in a rezoning case or other like that, they would still have to adhere to those requirements. If they got parking variances, there is a potential that the parking variance is mute, because the Ordinance could require less. Those were the two scenarios she could think of, now. Planning Commission Hearing Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023 Page 106 of 107 Commissioner Perez stated that they had required in the staff narrative that if it is reduced, it would just automatically get reduced with it. She asked if she was understanding correctly. She gave the example of building a multifamily with 200 required parking spaces. Under the new requirements, it would be less, theoretically. She asked if she would be stuck with the 200, or if it would be automatically less, or if she would have to get a variance to make it less. Ms. Gomes respond that if this text amendment were to pass in September and go to Council in October, it would be effective. So, anyone developing, could utilize those requirements. Acting Chairman Gaynor reminded the commissioners that this presentation was only informational at this time. There were no further questions. No action was necessary. ***