Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner outlines state parking reforms that will force local code updates
Summary
City planner Hans Sheppard briefed the Planning Commission on state bills that would limit local parking requirements, allow gravel/grass parking surfaces, and create tree-preservation exceptions; staff will update Title 14 and Chapter 16 to reflect new maximums and standards.
At the March 25 meeting, Senior Community Planner Hans Sheppard summarized state parking-related bills that will require Lacey to update local code language on minimum and maximum parking, allowable surface materials, and how tree retention affects parking requirements.
Sheppard described one bill (referenced in the briefing as Senate Bill 6015) that addresses minimum parking for residential development and says garages or carports cannot be required to satisfy minimum parking requirements. A broader reform (referred to as Senate Bill 5184) would revise the city's parking table in Chapter 16, setting limits such as no more than 0.5 off-street stalls per multifamily unit, no more than one stall per single-family unit, and numeric limits for commercial space ("no more than 2 stalls per thousand square feet" as read in the briefing). Sheppard noted ADA-related requirements are unchanged.
Sheppard also said the legislation expands permissible parking surfaces to include gravel or grass and—critically—contains language that allows jurisdictions to reduce parking requirements when required parking would risk removal of existing trees. He said Lacey will need to reconcile this language with its Title 14 standards for parking-lot construction and with the zoning chapter that holds the current parking table.
Commissioners asked whether Lacey has been more or less restrictive than peer cities, whether developers typically provide extra parking, and how tree protections would be implemented. Sheppard said Lacey has historically been mid-range, that developers frequently provide parking above the local minimums, and that staff will need to make policy choices about how the tree-retention offsets and maximum/minimum structure are applied. He flagged that some provisions are written broadly in the legislation and will require further refinement at the local level.
Sheppard said staff will return with draft code changes, noting that some proposed changes will be straightforward updates to the parking table, while others (tree-preservation tradeoffs and surface standards) will require more detailed code drafting and public review.
