►
From YouTube: Beacon Planning Training 8 8 23
Description
Planning board training session regarding "parking standards requirements for the City.
A
Okay,
so
we're
going
to
start
the
workshop
portion
of
our
meeting,
which
will
take
us
until
7
30,
at
which
point
we'll
formally
open
the
the
formal,
the
formal
agenda,
so
with
that
John
Clark
suggested.
We
start
discussion
about
the
concept
at
this
point
of
amending
our
our
laws
to
remove
the
requirement
for
parking
and
I'm
over
generalizing
right.
So
John
will
get
into
more
specifics.
A
B
B
The
theory
going
back
to
the
70s
was
that
the
city
would
provide
public
parking
along
Main
Street
behind
the
businesses
with
big
parking
lots-
and
this
is
the
Legacy.
You
can
see
all
the
gray
areas
where
there
are
parking
lots
that
are
run
by
the
city.
It's
over
nine
acres
of
land
over
400
000
square
feet.
B
That's
a
lot
of
land!
That's
set
aside
for
nothing
but
parking,
and
when
the
Main
Street
access
came
as
Commission
State
said.
Well,
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
complaints
about
none
of
the
parking
on
Main
Street,
so
they
looked
at
a
variety
of
different
options
and
the
first
option
they
took
was
to
increase
the
amount
of
parking
spaces
without
a
case
them
out
of
asphalt.
B
B
C
C
C
B
Which
is
a
big
parking,
lot
was
only
50
percent
full
and
there
was
a
lot
of
parking
on
the
Pines
side
streets.
So
if
you
look
at
the
percentages,
if
you
want
to
park
right
in
front
of
the
store
on
Main
Street-
tough
luck,
but
if
you
wanted
to
go
a
block
or
so
away,
then
it
was
parking
and
that
was
on
a
peak
day,
not
a
Tuesday
afternoon
or
a
you
know,
a
February
Sunday
or
whatever.
C
B
B
So
there's
different
ways
to
attack
the
problem.
One
is
to
make
the
parking
lots
more
efficient.
This
is
an
example
of
a
inefficient
parking
lot.
The
County
Center
lot
has
92.
Total
spaces
takes
up
a
huge
chunk
of
that
property,
including
the
corner
facing
Main
Street.
You
could
reconfigure
the
Lots,
make
it
more
efficient.
You
get
113
spaces,
21
more
parking
spaces,
and
you
can
put
a
building
in
a
a
green
space
on
the
front
end
of
the
parcel.
B
C
B
B
Another
way
is
to
build
over
the
lot.
Here's
a
concept
study
I
did
for
the
Henry
Street
lot
behind
the
diner
and
and
town
crier
right
now,
there's
72
spaces.
There
they're
used
quite
a
bit,
but
you
could
put
a
three
or
maybe
even
a
four-story
building
on
that
parcel,
it's
in
the
commercial
District
and
put
parking
underneath
and
even
have
Apartments
facing
Henry
Street.
So
it
doesn't
look
like
a
parking
structure,
it's
all
hidden
behind
and
you
lose
five
parking
spaces.
B
B
B
So
this
is
where
the
biggest
parking
crunch
is
so
using
the
hill
to
take
advantage
of
the
Hill.
You
can
have
an
entrance
on
one
side
up
one
level
in
an
entrance
on
the
other
level,
so
you
don't
have
to
have
internal
ramps.
That
makes
the
parking
more
efficient
and
you
can
fit
147
spaces
on
that
parcel
where
right
now,
there's
only
50
something.
C
B
B
Out
there
hey,
the
access
committee
proposed
a
three-step
process,
add
more
parking
just
by
re-striping
and
being
more
efficient.
The
second
one
is
to
look
at
paid
parking.
You
can
control
parking
by
controlling
the
price
and
since
the
primary
crunch
for
parking
is
on
the
weekends,
when
it's
really
tourist
generation
and
not
generated
not
residentially
generated.
B
C
A
C
C
B
C
B
B
B
Whereas
housing
for
people
is
restricted
in
many
ways
and
always
expensive,
we're
really
valuing
cars
over
people
for
housing,
for
cars
instead
of
for
people,
because,
if
you
look
at
parking
lots,
they
typically
represent
10
to
20
percent
of
the
total
housing.
Cost
of
a
project
adds
17
percent
to
the
average
apartments
rent
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
have
cars
or
don't
need
cars
you
can
get
by
with
walking
in
public
transits
in
a
place
like
Main
Street
in
in
Beacon,
and
since
lower
income,
people
are
less
likely
to
have
cars.
B
Yeah.
There
are
argument
is
that
our
our
parking
regulations
in
Beacon
haven't
been
updated
since
the
Cincinnati
and
any
general
way,
and
since
the
1970s
and
family
formation
was
completely
different
in
the
70s
in
terms
of
number
of
people
per
household
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
the
parking
standards
we
have
are
way
overdone
the
amount
of
parking
they
require.
B
C
C
B
Only
have
one
or
two
cars
per
house-
okay,
so
one
way
of
looking
at
this
is
to
there's
a
there's,
several
arguments
that
have
been
expressed
about-
and
it's
mainly
in
the
context
of
our
decision
talking
about
affordable
housing,
how
to
make
more
more
affordable
housing.
So
if
you
require
less
parking,
you
can
lower
risks
in
theory,
because
they
don't
have
to
spend
so
much
on
land
and
parking
lots.
They
can
put
more
units
on
a
given
piece
of
property
than
they
could
otherwise
and.
C
B
B
One
thought
the
other
thought
is
to
just
take
our
1970
standards
and
look
at
them
again,
update
them,
lower
the
standards
of
what
makes
sense
more
now
across
the
board,
so
every
category
probably
can
be
lowered
to
a
certain
degree
and
still
because
most
of
those
standards
in
the
70s
were
based
on
Suburban
1950s.
Everybody
drives
a
car
sort
of
mentality.
B
But
if
you
look
around
the
country,
hundreds
of
communities
now
have
eliminated
their
mandatory
parking
requirements
all
together
and
they
just
work
with
developers
to
come
up
with
what
makes
sense,
based
on
their
parking
studies
and
their
needs,
so
Hudson
in
New,
York,
Hartford,
Buffalo,
Boston,
Bridgeport,
Burlington
or
some
other
examples
here
in
the
northeast
of
significant
sized
cities
who
have
eliminated
all
parking
standards
from
their
code.
Minimum
parking
standards
from
their
code
Kingston
just
adopted
a
new
zoning
code
took
them
three
years,
rewriting
almost
everything
in
the
city.
B
B
Place
in
place
for
a
long
period
of
time
that
I
know
in
Buffalo
they
did
pre
and,
and
they
found
that
they
haven't
had
any
major
problems,
that
the
reduction
of
parking
is
something
that
I
I.
Don't
have
the
number
in
my
head
offhand,
but
I
think
it's
something
like
has
gone
like
30
some
percent,
but
people
aren't
complaining
that
there's
a
huge
crunch
in
parking.
B
You
could
also
do
it
only
in
the
business
system
where
there
is
public
parking
available,
so
you
wouldn't
do
it
in
the
residential,
and
maybe
you
lower
the
standards
for
a
single-family
house
or
a
multi-family
dwelling,
but
you
eliminate
it
in
the
main
District,
where
there
is
Surplus
parking
and
public
parking
available
in
side
street
working
that
sort
of
thing,
Syracuse,
Schenectady,
Ithaca,
Rochester,
Scranton
and
Brattleboro
have
all
done
that
in
their
major
Central
districts.
There's.
C
B
All
these
things
and
it's
every
week
you
hear
about
a
new
community,
either
doing
it
or
thinking
about
it.
So
that's
been
put
on
the
table
as
a
possibility.
Beacon
Maybe,
the
other
two.
Are
you
sort
of
step
into
it?
You
eliminate
it
for
affordable
housing.
You
lower
the
parts
administrators.
You
give
the
planning
more
and
more
ability
to
waive
it
in
mainstream
situations
and
then
and
then
you
go
from
there.
But
those
are
all
the
things
that
are
sort
of
talked.
C
B
I
think
there's
cautionary
tales
out
there
amongst
people
who
have
looked
at
it
in
the
council
and
other
people.
So
it's
it's
not
on
the
verge
of
anything
happening,
but
I
thought
it
would
be
an
interesting
topic.
You
look
at
our
agenda
tonight
and
parking
is
a
big
part
of
it.
You
know
the
the
one
on
Fishkill
Avenue
is
twice
as
much
parking
as
building
yeah.
A
I
find
it
useful
that
you,
you
preface
the
start
with
an
understanding
of
what's
available
at
least
City
parking
right
yeah.
So
there's
con
there's
some
context
there
to
the
start
of
a
conversation
about
what,
at
least
in
my
experience
as
a
part
of
the
board,
is
the
biggest
challenge,
and
that
is
how
the
laws
are
currently
written.
A
In
contrast
to
what
it
feels
the
reality
is
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we
we
tend
to
always
end
up
finding
parking
after
waving
land
banking,
struggling
basically
right
with
the
question
of
parking
on
just
about
every
single
application.
So
for
at
least
my
perspective
and
I'd
be
curious.
What
the
rest
of
the
board
thinks
just
that
practical
piece
alone,
I
think
warrants
a
look
at
our
codes
relative
to
Modern
parking,
modern
understanding
of
parking
needs
and
how
the
house
households
operate.
C
A
People
getting
a
little
concerned
about
eliminating
parking
requirements
altogether
and
wanting
to
sort
of
ease
into
the
the
subject,
but
just
from
a
practical
standpoint
from
what
we
do
here
on
the
planning
board,
I
think
we
just.
We
simply
need
to
look
at
how
the
codes
are
written,
how
they're
applied
against
the
reality,
because
it's
it's
always
a
constant
Challenge
and
it's
a
struggle
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
out
of
our
planning
board
meetings.
Yes,.
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
B
B
B
Yes,
the
state
has
input,
I,
don't
know
if
the
legal
person
is
up
there
on
this
one
but
I
know
in
certain
cities
and
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
about
city
law,
but
in
Village
Law
you
actually
have
to
have
it
approval
from
the
state
government
that
they
do
residential
parking
permits.
Is
that
difficult
to
come
by?
No
just
a
member
item?
You
know
it
usually
goes.
That's
my
understanding,
I'm,
not
sure
about
that
one.
B
A
So
John,
if,
if
the
city
were
to
develop
the
impetus
to
do
something
right,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
I'll
go
back
to
this
sort
of
practical
aspect
of
the
codes
and
how
they're
written
and
how
they
they
tend
to
challenge
our
applications
right
would.
Would
the
council
need
to
charge
you
with
that
and
hire
you
for
that
part
of
a
study?
Yes,.
B
B
A
C
B
A
C
A
They
think
are
appropriate
right
of
what
we
just
talked
about,
because
you
covered
quite
a
gamut
I,
don't
know
how
we
end
up
getting
there,
but
certainly
worth
having
conversations
with
council
members
and
mayor
to
see
where
they
land
on
it
and
whether
they
want
to
take
it
up,
but
yeah
I
think
it's
definitely
an
important
again.
I
continue
to
go
back
to
how
we,
in
just
about
every
month,
struggling
struggle
in
the
discussion
about
the
requirements
for
parking
and
I.
Don't
know.
A
B
A
A
B
A
E
So
when
you
make
reference
to
communities,
removing
minimum
parking
standards,
there's
almost
certainly
more
than
one
approach,
but
are
we
talking
about
just
eliminating
a
harder,
fast
rental
requirements
that
are
written
along
the
lines
of
say
two
parking
spots
per
single
family
unit?
Or
you
know
our
formula
for
multi-family
dwellings.
C
E
B
B
On
the
communities
I'm
just
eliminated
and
assumed
that,
if
it's
certainly
in
certain
districts,
the
developer
will
provide
parking
because
otherwise
they
won't
be
able
to
get
a
bank
loan
or
they
won't
be
able
to
rent
their
spaces,
and
so
they
end
up
doing
it
anyway.
But
they
do
it
what
they
think
is
appropriate
for
their
land.
B
Other
places
I
know
I've
heard
that
Buffalo
does
it
by
negotiation.
Essentially,
they
do
a
parking
study.
They
determine
what
it's
appropriate
and
through
a
secret
process,
I
assume
they
determined
that
this
is
the
right
amount
of
parking
for
that
space
by
use
and
area
and
surrounding
liability
of
off-strike
parking,
and
they
come
up
with
a
solution
for
each
space,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
them.
That
just
say
we're
going
to
leave
it
up
to
the
developers
and
they'll
provide
sufficient
parking
and
we
provide
backup
parking
based
on.
E
Well,
it's,
it
would
seem
like
it's
got
it
in
some
interplay
with
their
consideration
of
what's
also
going
on
with
street
parking,
because
to
give
I
mean
one
example
of
someone's
putting
in
a
building
and
there's
no
street
parking
Bill.
Yes,
you've
got
a
narrow
the
streams
and
then
stand
in
the
zone.
E
You've
got
a
situation
where
the
private
incentive
script
there's
going
to
be
a
private
incentive
structure
there
to
provide
enough
parking.
Yes,
it
is
not
an
issue
for
building
residents,
whereas
if
you're
on
a
street
that
has
available
public
parking,
that
may,
in
effect,
be
simply
simply
increasing
public
cost
or
shifting
private
costs
to
public
costs.
E
B
D
D
B
F
A
C
E
A
F
I
agree
and
the
one
thing
I'd
encourage
is
not
to
base
long-term
decisions
like
this
on
anecdotal
things,
but
to
study
it
analyze.
It
analyze
it
with
the
specific
lots
and
buildings
and
demand
that
we
have
in
this
building
and
the
development
potential,
because
what
I'm
afraid
of
is
it
will
be
giving
away
things
that
are
public
and
not
ever
being
able
to
reclaim
them.