HomeMy WebLinkAbout102689 Min Ag Packet PORT TOWNS N D,.WAS I ON98368.' ...
F + • 4 '
{ f
F1 F JI
x send x
Port Tomr, .
l
CITY OF`POFST T"1 ISISE #D
w
ti t f
meeting of October`: , 1989: +
Id Roll Call
Chairman Tave 'nakis called the meeting to order at /aJ�
i her
members present were . Ion Kosec, Karen ' Erickson, Alan Carman,
Sally McDole and Bob Grimm. Also ',.present was Assistant Planner
Kevin C'Nei l:l .
11 . 9 Reading and Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting
Mr. Carman moved to approve the mindtes for the October 12 , 1989
meeting. Mr. Kosec seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
III . Communications ' `r
Mr. O'Neill distributed an article on. the Property Development
Process se -attached' copy . '
Copies of photographs of Tyler Street as. it used to look with
trees along the side of the street were submitted to Chairman9
_.
T vernakis see attached copy. Joyce Webb would like the
Planning Commission to take Into account the +trees in Port
Townsend when considering variances and other ;!�land use
applications,.
+ t
I . Old Business
Short Plat, . - 2, James Daubenberer
The Planning Commission' received a letter from the applicant
asking that the application be withdrawn (see".attached attached copy . ,
Be Conditional Use., 8909-02 , ord-1 and Construction Bay Vista
Condominiums)-
1. Staff Presentation and Review
. w ,
Mr, O"Neill reviewed the Draft Findings of Fa6t and Conclusions.
Draft A recommends approval while Draft B recommends denial. , The
applicant roposes construct a 3-story, 1.1.-unit condominium
located at 1805 - Water Street in the C-I11 zoning district.
Lois Sherwood joined the commission a . th-is time.
1�
Mr.' O'Neill reviewed the conclusions to Draft.- A and Draft B.
i f
Ms, Erickson asked ed Mr. O'Neill 'if Calhoun Street would be
3'
f
5
., d
Planning Commission-"-October 26, 1989
Page 2 of
maintained by the City. Mr O'Neill responded that it would.
2. Public Testimony
Mark Johnson, applicant, testified in favor of the application.
He discussed the rip-rap that will be used at the end of Calhoun,
as opposed to an extension of the seawall , as Prignally proposed.
Mr, Grim asked the applicant if view preservation is being
considered. lir, Johnson stated that he is willing to take
suggestions for changes in the design of the building.
Ms, Erickson asked what the extent of the excavation would be for
the foundation and if that would have an effect on the shorelines
permit.
Bob Truthelwick, who was involved in a voluntary design review of
f the project, stated his feeling that emulating a victorian is not
desirable. He would life to see it as part of the new Port
Townsend rather than trying to simulate old Port Townsend.
Mr. O'Neil. told the Commission that a voluntary design review
was held on this project.
Ir. Grimm stated that the design review was strictly voluntary
and should not be considered in the Planning Commission's
decision.
Ir. Johnson stated he is willing to tape into consideration
suggestions from the Planning Commission and the Public.
Carolyn Neimeyer asked what public access there would be to the
beach. Mr, • eill reviewed the conditions relating to beach
access,
Bill schwilke, a neighboring property owner, stated his concerns
against the project. He believes that private residences should
not be allowed in a C-III zone.
. Committee Report
Alan Carman stated his biggest concern was the redesign of the
building. Mr. Carman stated that he perceives no problems with
placing a condominium in that district,
, McOole asked about the units nearest the time store. The
Ii
applicant responded that the unit most affected by the store was
already spoken for.
Ms, Erickson concurred with Mr. Carman. She stated the buyers
must be aware of the noise before they purchase the condos. She
Planning Commission--October 26, 1989
Page
felt the views would not be substantially affected.
Some discussion followed over the possibility of design review
suggestions. The applicant stated that he was willing to work
with the design review committee.
There was some discussion concerning the possibility of adding a
conclusion stating the applicant's willingness to work with the
design review committee.
Some discussion followed over the incompatibility of the location
of the condominium with the tine store,.
Ms. Nicole asked who owned the area between the tire stone and
the Bayview restaurant. Mr. Schwilke stated that Mr-, Browning
owned the lots.
Mr. Tavernakis brought up concerns that were mentioned during
previous public hearings on this site: possible left hand turn
lane; site used as nesting area for geese; po ' ible view
obstruction for residences on the bluff; visual obstruction t
entrance of downtown; visual appearance from the water.
Mr, Carman moved to recommend to City Council. Draft A adopting
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions 1-4 adding a fifth
Conclusion which states the applicant is willing to work with the
5
design review committee to implement their recommendations. Also
adopting items 1-15 in appendix A. Ms, Erickson seconded. The
motion carried 4-3 . Ids. Sherwood, Nor. Tavernaki , and Hr. Grimm
opposed the motion. Mr. Kose , Nis. Erickson, Ir* Carman and Ms.
McDole voted in favor of the motion, A minority report will be
forwarded to City Council .
C. Parking Improvement Plan
1 , Staff Presentation and Review
Hr. Hildt joined the meeting and distributed a copy of the draft
resolution for the parking improvement plan. Mr. Hildt reviewed
the parking improvement plan recommended by staff. The Planning
Commission recommended that the parking ordinance not go into
effect until a parking improvement plan is approved by Council .
Ir. Hildt also reviewed the parking improvement plans submitted
by Bo Sullivan and Gina Hegg.
. Public Testimony
Bob Sokol stated that the loop proposal with diagonal parking is
good idea. Angle parking should be allowed on one side of
�
Washington Street, He suggested Jefferson Transit revise their
service to better serve the downtown.
Planning Commission--October 26, 1989
Page 4 of
Carolyn Niemeyer from the main street program stated that she
supports a parking improvement plan.
3 . commission discussion
Ms. McDole asked how much traff is comes down Washington Street to
the downtown district.
Mr. Grimm suggested that maybe the Commission forward an outline
or guideline for a parking improvement plan rather than
specific plan.
Mr. Carman asked what the possibility of conducting a traffic
study in the downtown area would be. Some discussion followed.
Mr. Tavrnakis stated that if the plan were to be specific that
the store owners should be notified for a public hearing. He
stated that he would like to start with the basic and move to the
more detailed if necessary.
. Mc ole asked if limited time parking zones were an option.
Some discussion followed.
Some discussion followed over how specific the Commission should
e in their recommendation to the Council.
The Commission discussed the suggested changes to make the
resolution more general .
Mr. Carman moved to recommend the approval of the draft
resolution as amended by the Commission. Including th6 first
page as drafted and with the revisions made to generalize the
resolution. (See attached marked-up copy)
D. Short Plat Application 8908-03 , Harold Gruner
Mr. Gruver requested that the hearing be postponed to November 9 ,
1989 .
Mr. Carman roved that the hearing be continued to the public
testimony portion of the meeting on November 9, 1989, Mr. Grimm
seconded. All were in favor.
V, New Business
A, variance, 8910-0 , Allan and Rosalind Cunningham, scheduled
for November 30, 1989 (Carman/Erickson)
B. Conditional Use, 8910-03 , Port of Port Townsend, scheduled
for December 14 , 1989 Grimm/Kosec
r
i
Planning Commission-October 26, 1989
Page 5 of 5
VI, Announcements
Next Scheduled Business Meetings: November 9, 1983
Rezone, 8909-01 , Philip Ha srick (Erickson/Sherwood
B, Variance, 8909-04, Dee Bruecman Kosec/Grimm
C. Short Plat continued, 8908-03 , Harold Gruner (Carman/Kosec)
VII. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45
Darlene Bloomfield
Planning Cbmmission Secretary
P
1
PORT TO NSEN09 WASHIN 48N 98361
Port Tow send PlanningCommi"Ission
. � j_ .
CITY OF PORT TOWNSENO
•
r (Revised)
Business Meeting October26, 1989
1. ROLL CALL ---------------- P, M,
2r READING AND APPROVAL F MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
3 . COMMUNICATIONS.
a. current mail
4 . GILD BUSINESS:
a. Short Plat Appl . 8804-02, James Daubenberger
(Application Withdrawn)
b. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Appl, 8909-02 , Nordland
Construction Bay Nista Condominiums
1 . Staff Presentation and Review
2, Public Testimony
3 , Committee Report - (Erickson/Carman)
4, Findings and Conclusions
C, PUBLIC HEARING: Parking Improvement Plan
11 Staff Presentation and Review
2, Public Testimony
3. Commission Discussion
4, Commission Recommendation
d. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoat Plat Appl. 8908-03, Harold Gruver
(Continued from October 12
I . Staff Presentation and Review
2, Public Testimony
3 . Committee Report - (Carman/Kosec)
Findings and Conclusions
l
1
t
. NEW BUSINESS.
a. Variance Appy. . 8910-02, Allan and Rosalind Cunningham
Hearing date: ber o
Committee.. ,_....�.,..Carman Z .--- .i_ ksn,
Conditional Use Appl , 8910-03 , Port of Port Townsend
Hearing date: December 1989
Committee: Grimm Z Kose.
c
. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Next Scheduled Business Meetings: November 9 , 1989
a. Rezone Appl . 8909-01, Philip Hass ick
Committee: Erickson./Sherwood
b. Variance Appl . 8909-04 , Dee Hrueckmann
Committee; Kosec/Griml
GOV
. ADJOURN
(kLTV I
2 _
�uest List
Do you wish to If yes, indicate
NAME Iplease pcintl ADDRESS preset testimony? topic.
YDS, NO
4000of
D D
cl 0
El
a a
Cl a
❑ b
D 1:1
O El
D D
D -O
Q D
NONE"
cl
D D .
.C! 0
r .
T
C*Ity of Port Townsend
ti
Port Townsend,Washington 98368 385-3000
To: City Council and Planning Commission
From: Kevin O'Neill, Assistant Planner
Re: Article on Property Development Process
Date: October 26 , 1989
Attached for your review is an article which City Councilrerber
Julie McCullough discovered in her Main Street file. The article
provides an outline of the development process., and stresses the
importance of having timely and consistent governmental review
procedures for development projects.
Thank your very much*
KO
•
A
SCI ENCS AND ART OF PROPS DVIELOMUC
Planners, planning comassioners, and otters responsible for public lard use
planning and regulatory activities need at least a rudimentary urx3er tand g of
the property development industry and its planning, financing, and omstruction
prooesses. Planning policies and procedures can have a positive or an advere
effect on the oast and provision of housing in a ity. Local land markets
can be dramatically distorted if plannkig policy is not carefully constructed
anc7 if market response i
}
f I
r
4
e property development process varies widely. epexiing on type of
pro f cto tie developer's wnag<mmt phUosophyp arx market circumbI ms.
virtmallyall efforts wive a team of specialists coordinated by the
developer. complexity of a project and tie sophistication the developer
determines em-up of team, Demi pm r t f ars wmrage-sized
subdivision usually requires a feasibility/market cyst, a land use l r�L{
architrects, project engineers, attorneys, mortgage bankers, construction
management specialists (possibly a general aont.ract r working with
suboontractors)p and mai keting specialists.
The fol l wing higbly s impl if ied diagram represents s a typical devel op neat
process.
SITIE E S 17
SLLECTION
XCONOM3C FEASIBILITY
ACQUISITION ANALYSIS
oMKUN 17YACC
s
GOVERNMENTAL
CONSULTATION .
PR.EL1MIPLkRy 91TE IWITL L DrnLOPMENT
PLXNNI:. DESIGN OF MAJtKETINC
STRATEGY
P7VEPJ1?MXTAL REVILM 4
R o PROCESS
OBTAINING OF CONSTRUCTIO 1
rININ
DETAILED DESIGN �
CONTRACT LETTINC
DEVEWP ENT pHASE L
CONSTRUCTION NAmAGEKE T
MAJUrTI C CXMPAIGN rOR
rr . PDuT
PAWECT MxNAGEKENT Tr
COKPION
i
ANALYST S
When circumstances permit, mo.t major deve.lopw!rit efforts start with a detailed
market analysis. This occurs before land acquisition is ever considered. The
market analysis, usually prepared by a professionalmarket feasibility and
appraisal firm, is required for moderate-tor-large scale projects in order to
i&nt ify and design for market needs. A maket analysis is also an essential
prerequisite to obtaining most fui mcing. Market appraisals contain everything
from historic vacancy rates, rental surveys and buyer profiles to an analysis
of existing and anticipated future competition and dead in the area. Market
studies also look at business cycles and may identify a 'market window" in
which the nature and to of a project will be considered in relation to
interest rates, product demand and the general state of the area economy.
Market analysis is often undertaken in two phases: the first phase identifies
general market considerations and targets, and the second- appl.ies these t
potential project sites.
market nalre,5 are highly proprietary in nature due to anti-trust
oonsiderations, potential legal entanglement in the area f free tr a A
cmwrce, and since ompetitors could use then toga.a.n an.. unfair Market
f
advantages
Srm MBMLN
The seoond step in the development process,generally involves site selection
and acquisition. Factors driving the developer in this stage include his
market analysis, matching his needs with area zoning and comprehensive plan
factors, the price and availability of suitable parcels of land, and site
design considerations. A develonar is very dependent on a jurisdiction's land
use plans and ordinances when looking for guidance on matching the right
property with the project 's objectives. Plans and ordinances that are concise
and are consistently aid-unistered by a jurisdiction provide solid guidance to
development interests, and help reduce at least one factor of uncertainty awny
the many considerations that make development a high risk enterprise. When
area development interests cannot rely on the integrity of local goverr ent
plans for quidanoe in site selection due to vagueness, inconsistent
interpretations or ordinance admimistration, development risks and costs
increase, and the market place can no longer assist in comprehensive plan
impl a men at ion.
After selecting a site, the developer may acquire property, often with burtowed
funds. In many instances, the developer will aoquita an option on the property
rather than buying ing it outright. Property options are negotiated agreements
wherein a developer pays a sum, often very s i. eabl e, to the owner, to acquire
the first right to purchase property at an agreed-upon price. Property
opt ions, which reduce the risk factor prior to achieving project app rove 1,
range in length of time, but are om my for six months. This is one of many
Treasons why review process tirmiN is critical to a developer. He might lose
property option that has no extension right or only a 1=* 'ted ted rfight, and
sustain a substantial financial loss as a result of delays in the governmental
review and approval process.
r
1
k
a
Simultaneous with site selection, a de open ccupletes the econwdc
feasi ility lysis and intiates dialogue with government -arid caummity
interests on the proposal* An econcmic feasibility analysis includes a full
accounting of estimated costs, including firnancing, carrying costs, and
estimated project revenues. costs and rues dept on tering due to
financing ousts and the need to R hi t a ma r ke window'. A dec i s ion on whe the r
the potential financial rewards outweigh potential risks is made at this
point. The profit mgr on a successful project rarely exceed li to 13
percent. It is quite oommon for the real estate broker's omission of 6 to
pezmnt to exceed a developer's return on irrvestment despite the risks taken b•
the developer.
Sim ELANTM ML
Once site selection and acquisition have occurred, preluiwinary site plamir.9 .
and design are undertaken. The term 'prelim wry" can be misleading. Site
design and analysis work is usually done by a combination of architects,
planners, surveyors, engineers, and envirorn ntai, oonsultants andconsultant may include
some early consultations with a general contractor, When dote aor rectly l the
site pian represents the cuLmination of a very thoughtful process that includes
considerations ranging f r aim grading and topography to v i ,►- corridors. Ever •
site plan represents a series of development and plannming compromses. The
perfect site does not exist and trade-offs =t be madeto ac to all the
varying factors. In reviewing site pians, a planner needs' to recognize that
even seemingly minor design change requests can seriously disrupt the punts
total integrity. Before requiring a change in a site pians proposal, planners
should always inquire r about the reasoning the r ig ina-1 plan.
Final detailed engineerirq and design 'is generally not done until governmental
land use and env i row to l approvals have been obta m d and f inanc i.ng a r ranged
for the project. The d 4 i l ed eng ..nee r i g is postponed because of its great
expense and the fact Vat such detailed drawings are not necessary t
.
accomplish comprehensive governmental project review and approval.
Professional consultant fees generally range fram 3 to 10 percent of the
project's total cosh
92EENKRUML RMEW 9RQ7:mS5
The governmental review and approval process is one of the critical steps that
• a developer must emplete. Prior to govermental review, experienced
devel opers will, have prorked to insure a timely and af firmative arL rer frox� the
public secto r. Usually they wi-.l already have consulted with public staff
yrs and surrounding property owners and taken their interests into
consideration. They will have selected a project site, and developed a draft
proposal so that it complies with area plans, zoning requirements and other
development standards. In short, effective developers will have done all they
can to insure project approval while ba a ciN the manyonrai..n ..s ed by
market economics, consumer demmid and site plannmiig trade-offs,
s
At this point, tima.ng becomes an even more critical factor that has dramatic
effects on project ousts and,ul i mately, on bus iness survival. Financing
costs, carrying costs on " p--front" expensest cash flow considerations for the
i
property option considerations, and hitting the market wi x3cw, aie all
impacted by t ire. Timaly review substantially reduces developer costs and
risks, which translates into wre aff rdable housing for society. By stzte
statute, Btlb&Vision review a Prov ,l or denial must be fileted withjfi 90
days of submittal of an application unless an environmental impact statement is
required. If the development camianity cannot rely on opted plans and
ordinances for solid guidance, and if public review and approval is not
consistent timely, then risks increase for the development and f irumce
anninities, as do costs and the demanc3ed profit margins.
Project financing is swght after goverr, `tal approvals are obtained, Deal
estate development financing- and provision of mortgages is a very sigru-f 1can t
portion of the total credit rnas et in the United States tachy, rang iN in the
many billions of dollars. est real estate developuent is done through
borrowed money simply because development costs far outstrip any =s or
individual's abi l i t to finance from direct assets. Financirq is prow sided from
a variety of institutions or investment mechanisms. The real estate industry
must compete for available fur 3s with other major credit users .includinq
federal, state and local govermnents, the corporate sector. and consumers. In
resent years, competition for available funds has become a serious cost factor Pe
f or developers. -
Developers work cleoely with mortgage and read, estate lnvez;tment bankers in
attempting to triad suitable financing. There exists a stringent financial,
legal and project review process which must be satisf actor ily completed t* ore
a ler .r will mit funis. Most projects are U' ui tiaily financed through short--
tem project deve-lopment and construction loans. ase loans have a c1dick
payback period l to 3 years) and are generally 2 to 4 interest percentage
points higher than private bank rags or for home
term mortgages, ague to the
higher degree of risk involved. In recent years, construction loans ranged as
high as 20 to 22 percent. After completion of a project, 13r term financing
is often provided to the eventual, purchaser.
The connect-ion between try project preview and reduction in f ironcing costs
should be evident at this point. Particularly when interest rates are high,
delay of several months can mean the difference between f inranciaJ survival or
oc)llap e. It can also mean the differe oe between buildiN certain rrunit
amenities into a project, r leaving the out. Financing also has ail pct n
"front end" carrying casts. Any expenditure which mist be -made early-on in the
project may be increased by two or three fold in the final `prcduct price since
longer-term financing charges must be paid on the investment.
The f final detailed design and engineering work follows ccia.-J e t i ori of f i.nanc i
arrangements. Contract bidding docments are prepared and -the construction
truction
work is then "let out to bid". Construction work is often dome under the
super- i i n of a general contractor who coordinates the work of subcontractors
on the project. The actual construction process generally follows a well-
defined sequence.
virtually � major construction activity is subject to govern ntinspection
and approlial. In ition to ouilding cedes and other construction order ce
requirements,rents, the architect, the engineer, the general 'contractor and the
suboontractors have their own review procedures to insure the quality of their
work. The ape tus for their concern for quality stems in part fran the i r
contr actual obligations and p r o j e t l i ab it i ty '(why.ch has no statute of
l irritations) should serious defects occur.
The fina . phases in the r e al estate development process involve product
marketing, and in the case of coamercial structures#. potentially long,-term
project managenept. Most marketing today is done through real estate brokerage
KEYS T2 ACEEEVING-A RELIC/PRRELIC/PRIVAM PARTNERMP EN
Planning programs are most successfully implemented when all major segments of
a oominity have participated in the planrLing process and are committed to its
goals. The ma.rket mechanism in this county is an e trenely powerful and
pervasive force. Cid planning skillfully takes advantage of the power of the
market place for plan inplementation. Unfortunately, a highly
counterproductive 'us versus them' perspective can emerge between public sector
personnel and the developer. Property development and ccummity planning truly
are joint ventures. The following are key considerations to harnessing the
power of the market place for efficient plan implementation.-
1.
mpl entation.-
1. Plans and ordinances need to be dearly written, and consistently
interpreted. There Should'be starve certainty that development proposals
that are consistent with area zoning and planning provisions will b
approved. Consistent treatment builds private sector confidence and
reduces risk for developers. This reduces land simulation, and
encourages private development interests to support comprehensive planning ,
provisions and impl ement them in their activities.
. Plans and ordinances reed to have some baa ild-in fl e ibit t , such as that
pr ow ided in performance zoning prow is ions. The right ind of f l e.x i b i l i t
does not urideranine planning efforts, but encourages .mumative and
creative development. It also helps maintain the long-tem integrity f
planning program by accomux1ating changing market forces.
. Development review and permit processirq need to be both ooWr hens ive and
ti y. Development oosts and the affordability of new housing are Ito a
urge degree tied to Interest oo t+ , contract obligations, land
options, weather considerations, business cash flaw, and market
opporturuties are all serer i tive. Permit denial by decision
postponement can be both deadly to a prolect illegal.
. Project-specific quasi--judicial hearings should not be used as
oppo r tun i t ies to change plan or ordinance policies. The deve,l op uen t
industry tr must depend strongly upon est.abl fished plans and ordirmces during
project planning and feasibility analysis. It rewires consistent
i
x
dec isioi naku* ig in the gove rnmental review process. ue tions about
car)g1!-Pg policy should be assigned to lesialgt hearings and not allowed
to creme into quasi-judio:.al oonsideratioans of specific projects.
.aore r s sb u.d be kno l edgeabl a about the purpose and fact of ce A to i n
developwnt standards such as roadway wide hs or s devalk requirements.
Development standards almost always involve. a number -trade-offs bete
eonsumer cost, ne i ahbr ood character, ted public health and safety
con iderat ions. Changes in technology, and in public and private .s,
require frequent reassessment of traditional development standards.
. Publ ic of f is i ai.s should Mi n irai a the impos i t ion on a leve l opmen t of f r or t
end costs that could reasonably be postponed. Treat may. sem like
relatively scl.I sums of money can mhrom into huge amounts due to
interest and other carrying costs, adversely affecting housing
afford bility.
7. Site design changes should be thoroughly understood and reviewed before
being inpsd on A project. The hidden consequences of such changes can
be technically r f roan Tally damg ing. If the developer and his
professional design team have done their job, there will almst certainly.
be an h' nportant reason or trade-off oorusideration for the plan feature
being questioned.
F
r W�
6 dk-
7ti {r i
y f.
r 1 r.SF IL 4ILi
qL
Am
**i7 t ,rt
ir
IL
4$1 de
• EJ 1
i
f *j
r �
ftrr. 1{', w -Y'�iT\r +t yX *, *�' ♦ - ,L,#r
+'�+ � y '� � is F� �� '� ��'�1,a*4, *• +.■# i�,r� � •���
Lei * # 1
r J.- * . * .#,.F i+` '� �T ~• *' ,~•a �',•a#� ' r4 a li rt•:":wt;+.��w. is
• ` +, 4 • ■ r �■ -�t ■ #, ice+ 1 'i+ it`#i a1 • #
+ � r�* �■'F ,y {$ a y Y r ,i* ir-.'Lot
#*ri' - ■'• • `i ..•4* '4 +yr T \ 4 #�►
" +*� r ■,��f "*+ �,+ar +�. .�x `t. '■.a J`�• of.{ •' 'aF +i};�'} fi t ,++ ,.�a J� •
tJF * ■ dfr
+ �■
{�,;J,■-+ *;SYS■•f"� ' .< *'*. -r, f *i I -Jf- ' i
F* # �a * + i. F��
r +, r
Ilk
`�■ � '+A *� t # f. �7i.i`rte�• r r ��i; . *;i,.01 ir ; {* F +
lw
1
�a�Ft• ■ �� .4rI..++t 'NF1 . � _ 4 •i4 r1 Y�� *- * +
d 41
4.
+d Ik .# 'rt
s ■ F' +i��it* i rF rt �' wf +*� 1 I ay - • �' K+# r +1 r10 f.I# t 40
`, J -� 1 Y r '. ., * r� • .r. . 'yY' ;.. t �+ r-'� M i *F �y■' ,i
`1 ■ T ■ rrw iy i�**�' Y♦f L i� ft
i }� •+�r�r A +�.� } IT' #■ r'#' *fir i*' �R +yk.- '
* '■+x 4: ,*'+ a�#a} ,� - � ■• 3�' •; r i-•,f' t-r *;i ivy ,�i+' i
'�* ♦ ■;� t .Y�� � \ w i F^r * h a- �'i i i. r Mr � 1 .■��'+f-, , rt
# may* *�. 1 w�*"t+ 3 r ♦..a r# fi * r i �F iF J r+tir y +y�71•a*
1w *� � 'R Ty.�l i • •$ F'r EF { .r • • • r ,r ■ - i ■ *
45� F t.*-' �, 4, �; k' rY'r •+} 4. � #� +e } 4'M • +a te•- I A
'IN4 ■ e *� *+r t *' ?• ky„-• k*# ' r.N• ,1 !•• *F* •+. •■ , * ' {y��+ ■+ rµ
1 i� � / f'` * ■■ *,i # ;; rfYa �f,."ri i #a: • .. i 'a 'tom F♦ • i!4* f .w A ,aM
i-.++• +f f*- r itl'+ *;{ '• • +.,. r t + ; {# *; j� ■, ��" *. f•
IP
{* i f-i •i �� ,r}#� rR -*' ' ./r• ;�.- r.7r'+* ►J r +• `,}+a-• * a• / � �� ti 1 ` �� � POOL�
+ #!ryyX* ; *T �i •� � .■� r416
*+' 5,�.+•'Fa :rte �+ { ' }'
• - S;`F Ft T- rte•F Y ~#+ I ' .
#}�'.+I_i&* '4}{#F�- F* !• - .` • t*� i� +
16
IP JIM p
IL
4 l •+r �,` * _ � . +� .�, �y*. •If+-•.r t- #.�.,.N+*•• . +s• ••i ;Tyr , J"•�*r-r }*1■L+�*
+ t �r J' ". r''te r• �f f r . '' ice_• , _ W. ry r t " ' ♦r # Odk
0i I a 1 w ' ti �.!.'.�* t Y *`'}* ! ' rF* r1i�-f , `
1 f ra :- ■ 'Ok'a r t 4r I +*. r' -I" {� *{ •�* t��
' + �* ;�' +'+40 a ''Jr F� - + , i * r
} F *+ ► ■ i ' i, % r} t �•e w 1 'tir r' * f*. •' }rt; 4 # �','.(ice ■�%. ;
►R. a�■ r •Y +# r � k;'* *
'�■+*, * .#w it #f� k+ .t.. r # . Y ++."■ wy , l;' . w
#� 4 ,iILI
ark �F
, r , F
+ k t'r + J / i
rCi i ti
# f ,fir-.. + # M +�' . , `. �*; f' • i`y# i }� +{
♦ f+ i r#� +, * f+ r , aarr .r ■ M ti ' ' 41
4 • ' {�� ' if as ' ` •# r j.lti ** i fop* ■ ~ y "'
JA' w
* r JIFl.1•rr r+.4��,rr ir,Fr
■ ! i•,rt'Y♦i# +' t i r ..Tr,!rt.wrryyr,r•�+ 64 •� y Y:'r+#I{q.
uR f
1 • i ■
ti s3rd 1 �lld%l
IL
}` r�� n ! �r ���r+rF * � ••.+��"+�+*��y r i ���� „t;.'M�T tr �..�" 4*■ t * ��*�{�,,
40
AP ,M +.cam. . • * + ;L +^{ * ;. .T, t.
L pi..0
,,
,�. ■
4r
4
•
a
r '
�y*+
..loft Illi
4 ir Ilk
a IF
Ill r
•;.� fi• - -� r
., �••�
*y` L
a 4 ir
R�4
t' C 4
Ep q Op
'..
Pd
# ,
d;,.
-r
* rR
# '
NP
■ Air : • • ;
r pa
► 'i1
f40,
e
y� +�*���y,.�**�r�ras Tom;•#+*. � +rti. ..ry+.r..+ , -' }'*'4�fw+--��,.�i.,y,�R,_„y' �� �- ~*
�'�r.'*+I�r e■ #�•i/'r / r+- " - -*+• �!i*- *Y + 'A. Fisy r+ +44 #3Y ;� 3 /, i y
r. rl •.�/
r #rr'ti� y + w 1
ft r
• a 1 +�1+•r•`� #ter Y`�
F .'� jad, V.
�� 1:i y .?i y. �h■*+� +.X.r r#R *+yR F+ �
' �., • ,j # ;�.. rt} * +w �'/i •- �r+##tib'+ +,s em +. . ;
y • yi'v�*:' *ir•-! j/ +J ' ;■ ' ,/�. F+R-# *a f* +} :+r ++r�',* +F•Ft
KK +� �.. i �• a frwt ��+ •f` + +- `Rf .. s`��** '*w".. tiLl�� {ri 7 *w.N,r.F �"
y� i�� �f��i*J t �. a��y `�i.F4 t� #:� ��ii.� a� +�`t �-��•+IY�*_��a}�• �.+�s'#►�R ' ��
LriiM rr # ,y����' tf. '• ` +..x+ _k'+rt ii ,;•r •*J, ��'-';�'r►# * ire=
IRV
yip L+# I0r�p ;Tr�rr}f4*w�ifi t�ni,>t N -+�Y. #t''rii*-+i~crtiif'^►F''��r .
* '•�i�r,R�kT
.�rry6rF,
{.q r +yt•L■i_ *,i. 1-.,.,
. ik; #y r "I. 4f wwr yam■F"'y w� • L
ll
YOl _
+ + {� **{`R J, r +�, 1, s it f. y •r y a �+�• ' w • Y r.►r:
t * tr7 }*i' r i i. L •rk 'rt ti r+' y** •t.y' Y. i#ri '
Fit
L .C.. �'#}' r it ►•t .\ +e"f T+ y t •
/
to
.1 . r .t•.�.# Y � '+ '_� ,+' Ft'.1*irl #16i i!r y• '� .. .#Yh i.' i #`
1
i
FOR LAN ING �I SIOH HEARING
THURSDAY, 0 BER 2617 : 30 PIS
i I
FIRST DRAF'
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION adopting a parking improvement
plan for the Port Townsend Downtown Parking
District.
WHEREAS, downtown Port Townsend has enjoyed an, economy.c
resurgence based largely on tour i sx ; :,and
WHEREAS, economic success has brought occasional downtown
parking shortages during peak summer ',and festival
periods; and
WHEREAS, parking shortages are occurring more frequently and are
encompassing a larger area than in p ; t years; and
WHEREAS, parking shortages are expected to increase in future
years; and
WHEREAS, parking shortages impede business growth when visitors
and local residents who are unable to find parking
leave the city; and
WHEREAS, when local residents seek more convenient shopping in
other communities during the summer, .,new habits and
loyalties are formed which reduce retail sales during
the balance of the year; and
WHEREAS, motorists searching for parking and trucks parking in
the center of Mater street are increasing traffic
congestion and compromising public safety; and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the city council passed ordinance 2093 ,
reducing off -street parking requirements downtown and
establishing the Downtown Parting District; Now,
Therefore,
HE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of PORT TOWNSE ID
that the following Downtown Parking Improvement Plan is hereby
adopted to improve the future prosperity and enjoyment of
downtown Port Townsend for residents and visitors and
HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the active support ,and assistance of
every citizen and business or property owner i hereby requested
in order that these plans may be implemented.
4N
AD9
kh
RiF y
DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENT PLAN
11 Enact new off-street ki regulations hich strike ars
equitable balance between the need for new off-street
parking facilities and the economic reality of developing
such facilities by individual businesses.
29 Make more efficient use of existing on-street areas for
parking by converting cross streets to one-way streets s
that increased diagonal parking may be employedrs�-drws
Taylor street: one way travelling from Washington to
Water Street
b. Adams Street: cine way travelling from Water t
Washington Street
C, Quincy Street,: one way travelling from Washington to
Water Street
d. Vadisn Street: one way travelling from Water to
Washington street
Establish an employee parking program to encourage employees
to park in peripheral areas during the summer months,
a. Flyers to employees identifying suggested parking
meas.
b. Encourage lease terms which restrict employee parking
during summer months.
C, Employee parking agreement program: stickers and
wallet card program. Employees who agree to
participate place stickers on cars; special "ticket" f
park in retail core area. Wallet ID cards qualify for
purchase discounts with participating downtown
merchants, subsidized transit passes may also be
provided.-.
*R-
4,fy Deveiop- peripheral parking lots in the flats west of the
Downtown Parking District and in the Pent Hudson area.
• ish transit loop connecting peripheral parking to and
through the downtown.
Cvn
i spa{ -1-is morn'1
ng truck zones to reduce or eliminate truck
deliveries from the center of Water street.
_ �.
r
t
Remove parking fromstreet ends on Port Townsend Bay and
develop these meas as passive pedestrian areas and public
shoreline aesways. � +)
-
�Ae,,(M\
8. Consider development of a multi-level parking garage .-a - I i.-\
�' y,-I ' - h-in -Streets-:� j 91
F
Encourage formation a Parking and Business Improve ent
Area to fund and manage parking improvements.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend and
approved by the Mayor this day of 1959.
Brent S. Shirley, Mayor
Attest:
David A. Grove, City Clerk
Approved as to form
Keith C. Harper, City Attorney
m
� £ m •
D u 1
- z
m
ON
4r
VON
tAmommommommoma A D A M S
o _womb
z
70
m
rn N
tq
000m� awsm Imm am=&amms go/
010 dim*SEEM 400M WAIM moom Meow
SOMEONE mmmwm�
tow lom OSSS' WOMEN
-1
0
J
,o
MONROE