HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2024-10-28 - Number 07.1.2 - Staff Presentation PP 22-0001/LU 24-0025 Community
Development
111.111
O tL
H �
OREG04
Citywide Parking Reform (PP 22-0001, LU 24-0025)
Climate-Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC)
Planning Commission Public Hearing
October 28, 2024
Overview
1. Background
2. City Response to CFEC Rules
3. Draft Code Amendments , ,11111k ' 1
• Recent Changes in Response : f� :•
} a.
to DLCD Comments
r•
4. Next Steps
()yA E -
.00110,
LU 24-0025 PAGE 1 OF 16 1
Background
Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC)
Program Purpose
• Implements former Governor Brown's Executive
Order 20-04
• Reduce GHG emissions by: LC
DLCD
— Directing development into mixed use centers and areas
with transit;
— Making walking,cycling,and transit safer and more
convenient; and
— Providing people with access to services and destinations.
• Parking reform targeted because more parking
leads to more driving/ more GHG emissions
041AEA
R+
V _1 0
OREGOc
LU 24-0025 PAGE 2 OF 16
Why Reduce Parking Mandates? (1of4)
Market-based approach to parking that would be driven
by supply and demand
— No mandated parking does not mean that no parking will be
provided
MI n
' % r t RI�
rzne rs _ lug'
i ,'Ati#4;:iz ..
ti
:it
Alig
n, to �.. - I 1 ..�L „ham .9[
=q- r
F -4 / S d 1�5. �>
�j/ /
Y 1
di. "Of 13th and Olive in Eugene built two new 700
,s -4TD stall parking garages even though none were Edge Corvallis student housing provided 2.7
IU CI OI
required.Source:DLCD. spaces/unit(2.56 mandated).Source:DLCD.
\,OREGOc\
Why Reduce Parking Mandates? (2of4)
Parking uses a lot of land Most cities have a parking management
problem, not a parking supply shortage
1 I ■■ - _ - 1_
,:�. ■ �.� Y;U 7 4
1bu7. 4�fl1 t it: ! a
R z D 11 11 _ B.
In T f a a � u e i •e ®! i osa 1 i
- �" i I I it ,�PI 11 L, Till
` 1 • 1i [CM -.: _
■
1 BEDROOM APARTMENT 1.5 PARKING SPACES , ry 1
NM FT. INCLUDING AISLES r' Yh
i ,
. ___,:,, . _,,_ _„___,„
088 FT' E I R '''
Source:Sightline Institute --T
,.,__L , . .1 , ,
,',Ual, 11161W1 F-1;11 '-' -
EMI /
--r' ' 44- 4---
Source:DLCD
OREGO�
LU 24-0025 PAGE 3 OF 16
Why Reduce Parking Mandates? (3of4)
Parking is a significant expense and displaces housing
Building a Parking Space Affordable Housing Development
(not including land cost and opportunity cost) (King County WA)
Eugene:$42,000/space parking garage one space/unit[easing costs+12.5%
Corvallis:$11,0001space surface(IDG°ding mug)
$62,000/space garage(including land.debt/ two spaces/unit leasing costs+25%
Surface off-street:$1,500-$12,000 Parking means cities build
Residential garage:$15,000-$50,000 fewer affordable housing units
Source:DLCD Source:DLCD
Parking's Share
of Housing Costs
Litman(2019):
04 ,E O 10-20%of Total Housing Cost
s
H Gabbe and Pierce(2016):
V __ C) 17%of Rent
Source:DLCD
DREG O�
Why Reduce Parking Mandates? (4of4)
Demand Versus Supply
Brier fmw8
Many parking spots are 1.5 Famlly 8l es S"�"150
no
underused 1.2
dyIIMG°rl °°°Supply:1.80 .'slem.Woel Supple 55
0 OB— Demand:o.95—ti Dem..
sa Demand: Srl
o
Te SYPPI^°SC m
Damara 129
King County:40%avg.unused E D.B Dema^e Dnn Ss apN+�sa
a Maoles Demand 1.38
Albany,OR:30%avg.unused ..r;:—Supply 0.61
m os- Demand:Da] Trpa4llM�Y= dgra.03
Bay Area:28%avg.unused a 5oe55• �_°�
Hillsboro:25%avg.unused 0
•00
.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Supply(Stalls/Unit)
atio ]90L]5460.83L50] L25iillliiiiiiAii !
Log0.50
o.s0.50125
1111111
B.pDS
U 0 n _ W n
,� Source:DLCD
OREGo
LU 24-0025 PAGE 4 OF 16
CFEC Rules: Overview
0 Parking- Phase A
— By December 31,2022
O Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging o _
— By March 31,2023 '—' "' _ 111111
• Parking- Phase B �r i'
— By December 31,2024 = _ _
• Transportation Systems Plan ----, -
(TSP) Update \ \ 1
— Start by 2029 41
04lA jt E4
�
,
V ,•'" . O
DREG O�
iti - ,
City Response to CFEC Rules
hit =HREMENJ
LU 24-0025 PAGE 5 OF 16
Parking — Phase B
Option 1 Options 2 and 3
OAR 660-012- OAR 680-012-0426 through 0460
0420
Due by December Reduce parking burdens—adopt eight land use regulations related to reduced
31,2024 mandates based on rs such
OARa600-o12 parking,sister panels,parking space
accessibility,on-street parking
Cities with populations 100.000.adopt on-street parking prices equivalent to at least
500/day per spot for 5%110%of total on-street parking supply by Seetenlber 30,
City must select one Repeal all 2023/2025(OAR 660.012-0450;effective dales per OAR 505-012-0012(4)(g))
parking
of three options mandates within parking Wynn Approaches
the jurisdiction
Do the above,and choose ONE of the following(option 2-or-option 3)
Policies to take effect no later then June 30,2023
(effective data per OAR 660-012-0012(4)(f))
Option 2 Option 5
OAR 6130-012-0445(1)(a)- OAR 660-012-0445(1)(b)-Adopt regulations
Adopt at least 2 of 5 policies minimizing or exempting required partdng for 15
no additional below,including one development types(summarized below)
action needed from options f-0
1. Unbundle parking for No mandates for variety of specific uses,small
residential units sites,vacant buildings,studlo/one bedrooms,
2. unbundle[eased commercial historic properties LEED or Oregon Reach
parking Code developments,etc
3. Flexible commute benefit for No additional parking for
businesses with more than 50 redevelcpmentsladdikons
employees
4. Tax on parking lot revenue No parking mandates within%mile walking
41,A EO 5. No more than''A space/unit distance of climate-hlendiy areas.
J` mandated for multifamily
eet
development residential
dparkict ng manage Ounbundl
rn resideg n parking r require y residential
of
- L7 parking irgrn rant for multi-family resitlerrtial
- mean, 0 units.
Source:CFEC Parking Reform Overview,DLCD,January 10,2024
OREGO\--,
Options for CFEC Compliance
Option 1:No Mandates Option 2:Fair Policies Option 3:Reduced
Repeal minimum parking Implement two(of five) Red Tape
requirements citywide options: Eliminate minimum parking
Nothing further required 3. Flexible commute requirements for:
benefits required for • Studios/one-bedroom
employers of 50+ppl apartments
4. Establish a tax on • Group quarters
commercial parking lots
• Transit-oriented and
ALSO,pick one of these two: mixed-use development
® a. Remove parking mandates within and mile from • New uses/expansions
'/o Historic districts
Town Centers;OR
b. Adopt parking • LEED/Reach Code
management in Town • Buildings vacant 2+years
Centers-including: • Small businesses
• Paid on-street • Schools
parking
• Bars
• ''A space per unit
• •E required for • Development within and
0 • A-mile from Town Centers
'rty residential use
of
• No mandates for
commercial use
�REGO%
LU 24-0025 PAGE 6 OF 16
Option 1: No Mandates
PROS CONS
Ease of Implementation Simple,easy to explain/understand -
Reduces staff workload
Cost of Implementation Minimal to no additional cost -
Level of Flexibility for Results in the most flexible regulations for -
Businesses new businesses citywide by eliminating
parking requirements
Level of Flexibility for Results in the most flexible regulations for -
Development all development types citywide by
eliminating parking requirements
Impact on Development Likely to reduce the cost of development— -
Costs including housing development—citywide
Impact on Parking Consistent elimination of requirements -
Regulations would apply evenly citywide
Eliminates regulatory barriers
Impact on Existing Mostly applies to new development or -
Developments changes of use
Other Parking provided in response to market Could result in neighborhood parking
demand overflow in some circumstances.Over
the long-term,the City may need to
4 'E Q implement additional parking
0 `rat management policies to mitigate this
_ potential outcome.
aixoni
OREG O\--‘
Option 1
REPEAL ALL PARKING MANDATES ET PARgNG SPACEREGtIIREMEIRS
king Space Reque re
See reducing
te minilumof-stret parkin, aces
CDC
• No further action required Type of Rules Nucits based omyps of
•race requirements basfronrapes. used
from transit.
(E)COMMER•
1.Office.includin• and management 333 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.G..
ental
Oregon cities that chose Option 1: 2.Mees`xandde .incept in-. °'dorM
g p accessory
and dentalorin°,dinGstry. 39 spews per 1,000 sq. -FA.
ccessorylaboratodes for ne,dentistry.
• Portland • Tigard arts
vetednadan practice or other•tl ices of Me healing
3.Bank 25 spares p: 700 sq.AGFA.
• Salem • Central Point 0Supermarket 2.9 space• -r 1,000 sq.x GFA.
5.Convenience food store 22s•-0 per 1,000 sq.AGFA.
• Corvallis • Albany 6Specialty food stores.such as coffee,bagel w ces per 1,000 sq.fl.GFA.
bars(take.out foodldrink primarily)(2]
• Bend • Beaverton T Eating or drinking eslabIIMmentl,l 3 spaces per100.01.GFA
8 Eating or drinking establiMmerd with driveui •-cos per 1,000 sq.fl.GFA.
window EI
9.Barber shop.beauty mica,personal rMires,dspac= -r 1,000 sq.ft.GFA plus 0.5 space per
such as nail.tanning,and therapeutic• -age Marvin
Unanimous Council preference for salons
10.Rota sales and rentals,ex as others 3.3 spaces pm 'r sq.fb GFA.
this option specMed herein DI
11.Heavy equipment• .such as yard and fool l space per 1.000 sq. .FA plus 0.5 per employee
equipment
12.Service or re•c •p such as electronic and 16 spaces per 1,000 sq.h• •.
home apyia•-. ,alr,upholstery
13.Aumm•r epair garage and serriceMat, 16 spacesper1,000 sq.RGFA.. 0.5 per
employee
• •E\ u. ,ry calm*Plus
.5 W..ere matlmum• ladum
tr�\\ 1 p ace pw lS ss based nm mimu
kryon
15.Martial arts,music,dance,gymrastice,yoga 1space per 100 sq.lb G.F.A.of lesson activity •r
F cm re, studios area,pus 0.5 apace per employee
'‘"•.9.REGO%
LU 24-0025 PAGE 7 OF 16
Public engagement to-date
• Targeted outreach to key • Project website,email list
project stakeholders since
October 2023 • General Information/FAQs
page, including comment form
— Lake Oswego Sustainability
Network(LOSN) • Four Planning Commission work
— Lake Oswego Chamber of sessions
Commerce&Lake Grove Business • Four Council study sessions
Committee
— Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion(DEI) • Hello LO articles
Advisory Board
• Community Forum event held
— Mayor's Roundtable on July 24,2024
— Neighborhood Choirs Committee
(tentatively scheduled for 11/16) • Presentation to Lake Forest, Lake
/o4tiA Epp Grove, and Waluga NAs
H (tentatively scheduled for 11/20)
o
OREGGN�
Draft Code Amendments
LU 24-0025 PAGE 8 OF 16
Comprehensive Plan & Code Amendments
Staff has developed draft Comprehensive Plan and code amendments to
comply with applicable CFEC rules:
• Parking Phase A-Reduced Parking Mandates,including the Parking Reform for
Equity Uses and Parking Reform Near Transit provisions;
• Electric Vehicle Charging(Items 16 and 39);
10/25—Amendment to Item 39 to clarify that,per ORS 455.417(3)(a)(A),commercial
buildings under private ownership must provide sufficient electrical service capacity to
serve no less than 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces.
• Parking Phase B—Exemption for Communities without Parking
Mandates(Item 24);
• Parking Phase B—Parking Regulation Improvements;and
o4tiA Ep • Parking Phase B-Parking Maximums and Evaluation in More
s
H m o Populous Communities.
c-3 Ai
avow
OREG oc'
Parking Regulation Improvements clof2)
J • Item 37:Require preferential placement of
%1 virV .v.
carpool/vanpool parking
Ak.,4, . P jr Existing code provisions require preferential
4110 4 placement for carpools and vanpools,but an
amendment is needed to remove a reference to
IL required parking spaces.
Item 38:Allow redevelopment of any
.'<11, +' `'\;��� portion of a parking lot for bike or transit
:41117-r471% ;11'2..C7-- --;
r uses
itk 4y Existing code includes language that complies with
i the transit-related provisions of this rule,but an
.... ,�� � /_ ' amendment is needed to apply the standard to
bicycle-oriented facilities.
/yA E\
SjL
F R+
V ....... 0
OREGO�
LU 24-0025 PAGE 9 OF 16
Parking Regulation Improvements (2of2)
Allow and encourage redevelopment
of underutilized parking for other uses
(no amendments needed)
"A jurisdiction repealing parking mandates l "u ,, d :',0,"
per OAR 660-012-0420 is in compliance ,,-,u alle. f
with this requirement for off-street parking 1. '47."; ! -
without further amendments."
*Further policy action needed,per DLCD
guidance*
oaynme
Allow and facilitate shared parking -
Resldennal Office
(no amendments needed) Building Building
"The department expects to consider ♦Jlt g�aa
jurisdictions opting to repeal parking y+ 4a�''V
mandates pursuant to OAR 660-012-0420 ; F
41' A E OJT in compliance with this section.'
Frd
V .....- 0 Shared:Right-sized Parking
\ )
OREGOc
New Surface Parking Lots > % Acre (loft)
Item 29:Any new development that includes more
than one-half acre of new surface parking on a lot
or parcel,"must provide a climate mitigation
action":
/ `�
(A) On-Site Solar.Installation of solar panels with a _`
generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per '�� `-
new on-site parking space.Panels may be located "f...,,, _�
anywhere on the lot; _` -
(B) Renewable Energy Fund.Payment of at least AVE---- - l
$1,500 per new on-site parking space into the ��� I
t
City's fund dedicated to equitable solar or wind _ . C
energy development or a fund at the Oregon - - y
Department of Energy designated for such —4
lili
purpose;or - - u_
(C) Tree Canopy.Tree canopy covering at least 40 7
percent of the new parking lot area within 15
years of planting.
1A E
04 ONI 10/25-Amendment added to Item 28 to clarify that this section applies to all private
H' ''I developments and some public agency development(except those required to comply with OAR
0 0 330-135-0020),rather than exempting all"public agency"developments(as previously worded)
OREGO� c
LU 24-0025 PAGE 10 OF 16
New Surface Parking Lots > ' Acre (2of2)
Item 30:New surface parking lots larger than'A acre must �,, ..si ..'n'
provide either: ` 1141.
(1)trees along driveways;or t•, f ,;' ' ''
)i.
(2)a minimum of 30%tree canopy coverage over new
parking areas
x'rfr=<i
Item 31:Require new surface parking lots larger than%acre -
to,"provide pedestrian connections throughout the parking
lot,"that connect"building entrances","existing or planned of
pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public rights-of-way",
} ° `,
"transit stops",and"accessible parking spaces".
Item 32:Require coordination with the local electric utility .
for tree canopy plans
-
Item 33:Require applicants to follow specified tree planting ^T
�._ --.-i. -r....
standards to fulfill any of the tree canopy requirements ��: o •r.s
yn s 10/25—Amendment added to Item 33 to adopt
4 0
sP4, clear and objective standards through direct
S reference to the 2021 American National -
U WIMP ° Standards Institute(ANSI)A300 standards
OREGOt"
Current Parking Maximums
TABLE 30.06.002-2:MAXIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Zone Type of Use Maximum Number of Parking Spaces
FMU Nonresidential 3 spaces per woo sq.ft.G.F.A.
Commercial Residential r space per room
Residential 16 speces per dwelling unit
Other Zones Nonresidential Either 125%of the number of parking spaces required under Table
5o.06002-3(without applying the Parking Requirement Modifiers,
Table 50.06.002-4)or the required number of perking spaces deter-
mined by the Parking Study Method.
Residential No maximum
The City's current maximum parking regulations were originally
adopted in 1996 to comply with Metro's Regional Parking Policy.
Generally speaking,the City's current maximum off-street parking
space regulations only apply to nonresidential uses,and this
maximum is calculated as 125%of the minimum number of
spaces required under Table 50.06.002-3
4yn s� There are currently no maximum parking requirements for
AN"'
residential uses in the City.
Hr*
0 o
DREG Ott
LU 24-0025 PAGE 11 OF 16
CFEC Parking Maximums: Applicable Areas
OAR 660-012-0415 requires that
Lake Oswego set certain parking
maximums in the following -h-"�` !' m ti
areas(Parking Area A): ,a: —, •� '
~• The Downtown Redevelopment I , e ; °��`j
Design(DRD)Overlay District; ' p --r'-`y.+; i %�
..... °jo ,
• The Lake Grove Village Center -7� �' _ ,F '" `.. iII
Overlay(LGVCO)District;and % Jai a
°tom^
• Properties located within one- • .. .,
half mile of TriMet Bus Line _8_ `•
#35,which covers a broad f -t 1 - '
corridor along Highway 43/State ---•:/% ..,` ;„ •.) t' "'° x
Street,and in Downtown Lake
`�ti � — ---- The Clry of Lake Oswego
Oswego ,-'` ''''9Ames
• Parking Area B will - -- I
O4yA E OJ encompass the rest 10/25-Amendment to Item 21 to add direct links to maps
m of the City depicting the Metro 2040 centers(DRD and LGVCO)and lots
(4',
_- 0 within the transit corridor listed in OAR 660-012-0440 to the
notes for Table 50.06.002-2
OREGOc
Metro Parking Maximums
Table 2.01-3-Regional➢azk=ne Ratio•
Additionally,the City must (Parking ratios are payed o spaces per 1,009 sq. ft of
gross leasable area onwert ether
comply with the maximum
parking ratios outlined in Table _
3.08-3 of Metro's Regional °° °«•_;„;'„° '.°.°,'-°°°
Transportation Functional Plan °
(RTP) IF ; • io; Mr.l'.°. _.,
Some of the existing maximum
1teseholloeparking regulations in LOC »..=P°' �°" °'°°°
50.06.002.2.a.ii(4)currently do
not comply with the table
Metro applies their maximum - .. °°—°
parking ratios within similar :"r"°n°` °m
geographies to CFEC(Zone A and "n�°
Zone B) 1.31.193.3141 Au
7. E\ Proposed amendments ° e 1ee.
04 't comply with the more
F j 'n restrictive of the two •,` "` '`'"
/lam o r. �.�_ °°°. „°.
regulationsmiliAimito
OREGO�
LU 24-0025 PAGE 12 OF 16
Proposed Parking Maximums: Residential
Within Parking Area A,the following rules apply to residential uses:
Parking maximums shall be no higher than 1.2 off-street parking spaces per studio unit
and two off-street parking spaces per non-studio residential unit in a multi-unit housing
development....These maximums shall include visitor parking[OAR 660-012-0415(1)(a)];
This required a decrease to the maximum parking permitted for multifamily residential in
Parking Area A,as there is currently no maximum.
Detached single-family dwellings,middle housing,and multifamily residential uses located in
Parking Area B will continue to have no maximum parking limitations.
(AIRESIWITML grnnit
gong Ai Downtown,
Late Groua,hus Lire 35 Zamh:Recf of Clry
cosrldor
Wthen Highest highM. Highest [assent LD
(CHEO (mural (CRC) (Mengel CDC
1.5ngle.f2 miry dwelling and
m1dlehauslne NCMaz NOMaz NOMax NOMax NOMac
3.Accessory dwelling unR Na Maz NU Maz Na Max Na Maz NU Man
3.Muhl tangly
lA r`0 i.Studio/ lenq 1.2 5,Max NO Max 5,Max NO Mar
/04f� ii.Ihetlrmm ] NO Max Ne Max Na Max NO Mav
rn 111.2 ermwe hedrowm 2 NO Maz NO Maa NO Maz NO Mac
0 ni.ln FMU Sore 2 ho Max NO Max No Max 16
OREG Oc\
Proposed Parking Maximums: Commercial
To comply with OAR 660-012-0414(1)(b),parking maximums within Parking Area A
are proposed to be no higher than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space
for all commercial and retail uses other than automobile sales and repair,eating and
drinking establishments,and entertainment and commercial recreation uses
Other amendments were needed to comply with the maximums outlined in Metro
Table 3.08-3
• This results in a decrease to the maximum parking permitted for office uses to 3.4
spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.in Parking Area A,and 4.1 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.in
Parking Area B
• It also results in a decrease to the maximum of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.plus
0.625 spaces per station for barber shops,beauty salons,and personal care
services(such as nail,tanning,and therapeutic massage salons)to 5 spaces per
1,000 sq.ft.in Parking Area A(with no additional parking allowed based on the
number of stations)
041AE�
H-
V __ 0
OREGO� •
LU 24-0025 PAGE 13 OF 16
Proposed Parking Maximums:
Extremely Large Buildings and Non-Surface Parking
To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(c), Item 20 specifies that,within
Parking Area A,extremely large buildings with more than 65,000 sq.ft.of
floor area may not provide more surface parking than the floor area of the
building.
To comply with OAR 660-012-0415(1)(d), Item 20 also outlines an exception
to the maximum parking regulations for non-surface parking,such as tuck-
under parking, underground and subsurface parking,and parking
structures.
To comply with Metro and OAR 660-012-005(32), Item 20 additionally
excludes the following from maximum parking regulations:
• fleet parking; • employee carpool and vanpool
/o4tiA Eo • vehicle parking for parking; and
s\ sale, lease, or rent; • parking provided under the
o Americans with Disabilities Act.
OREG Oct
Proposed Maximum Parking Regulations
Amended Table 50.06.002-2 now aligns and simplifies parking ratios for similar
uses [Item 21]
Modifies the City's maximum parking regulations to the highest possible
maximum parking ratios permitted under OAR 660-012-0415(1)and Metro Table
3.08-3,with additional tweaks for ease of implementation and clarity
Results in increases to the maximum number of spaces permitted for:
• Medical and dental offices or clinics • Service or repair shop,such as • Light industrial,industrial park,
including accessory laboratories for electronic and home appliance repair, manufacturing;storage,warehouse,
medicine,dentistry,veterinarian practice upholstery; wholesale establishment,freight
or other practices of the healing arts; • Bank; terminal,truck or auto storage;
• Sports club/recreation facilities,including Auto,boat,or trailer sales; • Senior high and equivalent private or
billiard and pool parlors,video arcades, parochial school;
dance hall,gymnasium,health club; • Automotive repair garage and service
station; • Elementary or middle school or
• Bowling alley; equivalent private or parochial school;
•• Stadium,arena,theater; Eating or drinking establishment; . Nursery,day or child care facility,
• Eating or drinking establishment with kindergarten;
• Convenience food store; drive-upwindow;win • Library,readin
• Supermarket • Specialty food stores,such as coffee, gallery;
groom,museum,art
• Retail sales and rentals; bagels, g y
1,A E g juice bars(take-out food/drink
fL Churches,clubs,lodges,meeting rooms,
`t • Furniture,appliance primarily);
H pP and auditoria;and
rri store building materials; • Hotel or motel; • Hospital.
V _- 0 • Mini-storage facility; pl
OREGO�
LU 24-0025 PAGE 14 OF 16
Schedule & Next Steps
Citywide Parking Reform—Schedule
Rulemaking Updates&Extension Request Council Study Session#1 Jun 21,2022
[Jun 2022-Jul 2023] PC Update#1 Jun 27,2022
PC Update#2 Jan 9,2023
PC Work Session#1 Jul 24,2023
Project Background and Alternatives CC Study Session#2 Sep 5,2023
[Aug—Sep 2023] PC Work Session#2 Sep 25,2023
Initial Concepts&Recommendations Targeted Outreach Oct 2023-now
[Oct 2023—May 2024] PC Work Session#3 Nov 27,2023
CC Study Session#3 Dec 5,2023
Draft Code&Comprehensive Plan Drafting,Internal Review Jun—Oct 2024
Amendments PC Work Session#4 Jul 22,2024
[Jun—Sep 2024] Community Forum Jul 24,2024
CC Study Session#4 Sep 3,2024
Code&Comprehensive Plan Amendments PC Hearing Oct 28,2024 a
[Oct—Dec 2024] CC Hearing Dec 3,2024
Final Adoption Dec 17,2024
04 i,P\
r"
9REGG%
LU 24-0025 PAGE 15 OF 16
Questions?
I
Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Option 3
Ease of Simple,easy to explain and More difficult to explain and Challenging to implement The most difficult option to
Implementation understand understand Adds complexity explain and understand
Reduces staff workload Increases staff workload Increases staff workload
Cost of Minimal to no additional cost Increased complexity and cost Requires new regulations and The most complex option
to implement compliance monitoring
Implementation Requires new regulations and
Requires new regulations and Paid parking would have compliance monitoring
compliance monitoring budget impacts and require
additional staff resources
Level of Flexibility Results in the most flexible Some flexibility for new Continues regulatory barriers Some flexibility for new
for Businesses regulations for new businesses Flexible commute program businesses
businesses citywide would impact businesses
Level of Flexibility Results in the most flexible Some flexibility for Minimal additional flexibility Some flexibility for development
for Development regulations for all development in ake Grove for development in Lake Grove
development types citywide
Impact on Likely to reduce the cost of Likely to reduce the cost of No likely reduction in Likely to reduce the cost of
Development Costs development—including development—including development costs development—including housing
housing development— housing development—within development—within Town
citywide Lake Grove Centers
Impact on Parking Consistent elimination of Reduces regulatory barriers Paid on-street parking Reduces regulatory barriers
requirements would apply
Regulations evenly citywide Regulations depend on use No reduction or elimination of Regulations depend on use and
and location/proximity location/proximity
Eliminates regulatory barriers regulatory barriers—would
Differing impacts in different result in the highest possible Differing impacts in different
parts of the City parking requirements parts of the City
Impact on Existing Mostly applies to new Flexible commuter benefit Paid on-street parking and Unbundling and paid on-street
Developments development or changes of program would apply to commuter benefit program parking would impact existing
use existing development would apply to existing development
development
Other Responsive to market Incentives for sustainable Incentives for sustainable Incentives for sustainable
Could result in overflow to infrastructure or accessible infrastructure or accessible infrastructure or accessible
neighborhoods;may dwelling units dwelling units dwelling units
necessitate parking Could result in parking Based on outdated regulations, Could result in parking overflow
management overflow near Lake Grove not demand near Lake Grove
LU 24-0025 PAGE 16 OF 16