59 ***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM SEPT. 6 AND NOV. 1, 2023) - Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Parking Reductions for Multifamily Developments - Z-TA-8-23-Y (Ordinance G-7161)
Please approve as initially proposed by staff. Studies on our outdated parking show that each mandated space can raise rent by thousands annually, pricing out families, young professionals, and seniors. It's time to prioritize people over parking lots. With reduced parking we can build more housing, create more mixed-use spaces to promote walkability and economic vitality, and reduce car dependency and reduce emissions. By being data driven we can be more affordable, equitable, and dynamic
With great effort and ingenuity, the city of Phoenix has, over the last few decades, shifted certain areas to be dense, vibrant, and accessible to reliable public transit. Let's give developers the option to build housing instead of parking and give people (like me) who cannot or do not want to own a car an option to live in this city without being saddled with the cost of parking. The great majority of the city will still have abundant parking. This change allows for an alternative.
I ride my bike to school everyday, as well as to the grocery store. I always see parking lots that are always empty. This is an expensive waste of space. Parking increases tax & rent, & parking minimums aren't based off of any facts. Excess parking increases urban sprawl & the distance you have to go to get somewhere, which discourages people from walking. It also increases the urban heat island, which makes it more miserable to do anything except sit in an air conditioned vehicle.
Please approve as initially proposed by staff. The VPC's and Planning Commision gutted a good document. These groups who opposed original text did no esearch on the topic. They provided personal anecdotal reasons to deny. These were very privileged stories that never accounted for the future, only "how it is". Please approve as recommended originally by City Staff. They did research and work closely with developers, therefore are credible.
Phoenix is in dire need of additional housing. I fully support the reduction in parking requirements. Future-looking developments should have a focus on alternative and active transportation rather than cars. In the urban core, we need more density and more transportation options, not more parking. Taking this step will allow for more diverse and innovative developments and a better-connected urban area.
I support reducing parking requirements to improve the housing shortage and to make developments more geared towards urban living and less focused on single-car travelers. Especially for areas in the city's urban core, developers should be free to cut parking spaces if it's not beneficial to the area. This will allow for more diverse developments and a more connected urban area.
I am in strong support of any reductions in parking requirements and believe that Phoenix must go further in reductions, particularly along transit corridors. We must begin to shift away from prioritizing mobility via cars to walk/bike/transit/scooter and this is a great step in that direction.
I think its about time Phoenix reconsidered the societal costs of prioritizing car-oriented development. Lowering parking minimums is a great step in the right direction. Please consider the staff's original language.
I would support the reduction in parking minimums for multifamily housing if there was a mechanism to ensure tenants who are not provided a parking space by the building in fact do not own a vehicle. The tenant who is not rented a parking space could sign a statement that they don't own a vehicle. This responsibility should be put on the building owner who requested reduced parking minimums. Otherwise, the tenant will park on the street and reduce spaces for patrons to park next to businesses.
Please do not approve this without correcting and removing unclear language. Define 'special needs;' define 'elderly.' Provide applicants the specific opportunity to go through the quasi-judicial process if seeking exemptions.
I guardedly support the revised parking TA. I am leery because some provisions aren't clear, leaving questions about how exemptions will be considered and possibly approved without opportunities for input from residents. However, I appreciate that the initial version of this TA, which would have applied a cookie-cutter approach citywide without consideration for inadequate transit in many areas outside the central city, now applies the reductions to denser areas where the reductions make sense.
The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix has been working on Z-TA-8-23 since it was introduced. Our members have attended and spoke at 12 of the VPC meetings. Nine of the VPCs rejected previous proposals. The Planning Commission presented a curtailed version. NCGP is generally supportive. We seek to correct & remove unclear language. Define 'special needs;' define 'elderly.' Provide applicants the specific opportunity to go through the quasi-judicial process if seeking exemptions.
The current parking mandatory minimums have increased housing costs and led to empty lots and unused space. Excess parking is one of the largest contributors to the urban heat island. Property owners should be free to make decisions as to how many parking spaces they want to put in their property without arbitrary parking space requirements being imposed.
Excess parking is one of the largest contributors to the urban heat island. Reducing unneeded cement structures will keep Phoenix safe and cool for the future.
Reducing parking minimums promotes sustainable development, optimizes land use, boosts the economy, and enhances affordability. It improves urban aesthetics and fosters social interaction, aligning with public transport policies. This change can shape a sustainable, economically vibrant, and robust city for future generations. It allows for more family size housing instead of having half of Downtown and other parts of the city being 1 bedroom apartments.
High parking minimums are an inefficient use of public spaces and discourage using the space in a way that prioritizes the people of the community and economic output over vehicle storage. Eliminating parking minimums provides space for more housing, business, or public spaces that are conducive to a thriving urban area. Reduce the minimums, and then fund transit that will allow for further reductions/elimination of parking minimums
Please approve as initially proposed by staff. Studies on our outdated parking show that each mandated space can raise rent by thousands annually, pricing out families, young professionals, and seniors. It's time to prioritize people over parking lots. With reduced parking we can build more housing, create more mixed-use spaces to promote walkability and economic vitality, and reduce car dependency and reduce emissions. By being data driven we can be more affordable, equitable, and dynamic
With great effort and ingenuity, the city of Phoenix has, over the last few decades, shifted certain areas to be dense, vibrant, and accessible to reliable public transit. Let's give developers the option to build housing instead of parking and give people (like me) who cannot or do not want to own a car an option to live in this city without being saddled with the cost of parking. The great majority of the city will still have abundant parking. This change allows for an alternative.
I ride my bike to school everyday, as well as to the grocery store. I always see parking lots that are always empty. This is an expensive waste of space. Parking increases tax & rent, & parking minimums aren't based off of any facts. Excess parking increases urban sprawl & the distance you have to go to get somewhere, which discourages people from walking. It also increases the urban heat island, which makes it more miserable to do anything except sit in an air conditioned vehicle.
Please approve as initially proposed by staff. The VPC's and Planning Commision gutted a good document. These groups who opposed original text did no esearch on the topic. They provided personal anecdotal reasons to deny. These were very privileged stories that never accounted for the future, only "how it is". Please approve as recommended originally by City Staff. They did research and work closely with developers, therefore are credible.
Phoenix is in dire need of additional housing. I fully support the reduction in parking requirements. Future-looking developments should have a focus on alternative and active transportation rather than cars. In the urban core, we need more density and more transportation options, not more parking. Taking this step will allow for more diverse and innovative developments and a better-connected urban area.
I support reducing parking requirements to improve the housing shortage and to make developments more geared towards urban living and less focused on single-car travelers. Especially for areas in the city's urban core, developers should be free to cut parking spaces if it's not beneficial to the area. This will allow for more diverse developments and a more connected urban area.
I support reduced parking requirements in order to make housing cheaper for those who do not own a car.
I am in strong support of any reductions in parking requirements and believe that Phoenix must go further in reductions, particularly along transit corridors. We must begin to shift away from prioritizing mobility via cars to walk/bike/transit/scooter and this is a great step in that direction.
I think its about time Phoenix reconsidered the societal costs of prioritizing car-oriented development. Lowering parking minimums is a great step in the right direction. Please consider the staff's original language.
I would support the reduction in parking minimums for multifamily housing if there was a mechanism to ensure tenants who are not provided a parking space by the building in fact do not own a vehicle. The tenant who is not rented a parking space could sign a statement that they don't own a vehicle. This responsibility should be put on the building owner who requested reduced parking minimums. Otherwise, the tenant will park on the street and reduce spaces for patrons to park next to businesses.
Please do not approve this without correcting and removing unclear language. Define 'special needs;' define 'elderly.' Provide applicants the specific opportunity to go through the quasi-judicial process if seeking exemptions.
I guardedly support the revised parking TA. I am leery because some provisions aren't clear, leaving questions about how exemptions will be considered and possibly approved without opportunities for input from residents. However, I appreciate that the initial version of this TA, which would have applied a cookie-cutter approach citywide without consideration for inadequate transit in many areas outside the central city, now applies the reductions to denser areas where the reductions make sense.
The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix has been working on Z-TA-8-23 since it was introduced. Our members have attended and spoke at 12 of the VPC meetings. Nine of the VPCs rejected previous proposals. The Planning Commission presented a curtailed version. NCGP is generally supportive. We seek to correct & remove unclear language. Define 'special needs;' define 'elderly.' Provide applicants the specific opportunity to go through the quasi-judicial process if seeking exemptions.
Please allow flexibility in construction. The 'one more lane/ one more parking lot' mentality will never fix traffic congestion.
The current parking mandatory minimums have increased housing costs and led to empty lots and unused space. Excess parking is one of the largest contributors to the urban heat island. Property owners should be free to make decisions as to how many parking spaces they want to put in their property without arbitrary parking space requirements being imposed.
We need to reduce these minimums so low income renters are not saddled with the cost of parking built into the rent
Excess parking is one of the largest contributors to the urban heat island. Reducing unneeded cement structures will keep Phoenix safe and cool for the future.
Reducing parking minimums promotes sustainable development, optimizes land use, boosts the economy, and enhances affordability. It improves urban aesthetics and fosters social interaction, aligning with public transport policies. This change can shape a sustainable, economically vibrant, and robust city for future generations. It allows for more family size housing instead of having half of Downtown and other parts of the city being 1 bedroom apartments.
High parking minimums are an inefficient use of public spaces and discourage using the space in a way that prioritizes the people of the community and economic output over vehicle storage. Eliminating parking minimums provides space for more housing, business, or public spaces that are conducive to a thriving urban area. Reduce the minimums, and then fund transit that will allow for further reductions/elimination of parking minimums
Common sense to prioritize our spaces for businesses and people over the storage for vehicles.