HomeMy WebLinkAbout102987 Min Packet a
`the
PO T,TOWNSEI D. WASHINGTON 9198
Y
' • Jr1 \ Y
Port Tom -
ommusion.
J r 1
CITY OF PORT TORSED.
4
s
4
i
MINUTES of T'o '29, 1987
1. opening Business and: Roll Call
'I.
14
• { F r a
* hyairm- an 6rmah .called',the m etrrig `to order at 7.35 P.M.
Members pr sent were-Nancy Slater, Don McLar , n l osec, Donogland and
Chairman Alan Carman. - h ►i rman Carman declared -:quorum-.• Also resent was
City Planner Michael Hildt.
• i
Mr. McL.arneyr o ed the minutes of October 8,, 1987 be
approved as distributed.
Mr. Kosec seconded. and the motion passed'. -0. ;
11. Communications
Letters from Mr. Lunde, fir, .Parker Buck .(Property Owners Assoc), and the
Washington State Department nt of Transportation.
t Y
Mr. Carman and Mr. M L.arney reported on the Association of Washington Cities
Planning and Zoning Institute which they attended in Yakima. Subjects included a
legal update on 9 the impact of recent court decisions ':small city planning and tonin
program designs, rutsn'd bolts o the public -hearing. iro ess, hover the State
- HI
Environmental i Policy Act works, . iror i g effectively with. others, nd .how to
reviewfa conditional' use variance proposal. Chairman Carman'. taped some ..of the
t 5 i
} talks and video. tapes Mdll'be available. �
Ill. old business
a. Application No. '987-03 Gunda and Bjorn Lunde
.t
Variance 806 Clay Street
Mr. Lunde wrote to request a postponement of the hea'hng on his variance
request. Chairman Carman. opened the public hearing. lir. Kosec .moved to
postpone t h hearing to November. 19, 1987. Mr. McLar ey seconded ani the
.motion passed 5-0. The public hearing wa "clos d.
. Application Io. 687-- 1 _ Port Tow umbo'
Variance " - {'f . 219 SIMS Wa
)t
The applicant, lir, Wa gon r, is out of torn. fir. Hilda}recom'mended;{another
postponement of the hearing■
' a
s + - , 1 •_ ' '. t_� J�� J=am s
Mr. McLarney was opposed to a continuance. He felt the application had been
pending for a long time.
Mr. Hildt said that for the city to return an application without a letter from the
applicant requesting a► withdrawal might cause problems. He didn't think lir.
Waggoner had acted irresponsibly.
Mr. McLarney withdrew his ob, ection. The hearing will be scheduled for
December 10, 1987. Mr. Hildt will inform Mr. Waggoner that the commission
would like him to make a decision concerning whether or not he wishes to pursue
his request. He should either be present at the hearing or submit a withdrawal
letter.
c. Downtown parking Amendments
Mr. Hildt referred to draft #5 of the paper on parking and the draft
ordinance concerning zoning changes. "These changes were advertised for public
hearings, the last of which was continued and readverised in order to give the
Downtown Historic District Property overs Association time to review the
document. In his letter dated October 20, 1987' Mr. Buck requests that the draft
ordinance not be acted upon until a► parking improvement plan has been adopted.
The draft has a memorandum associated with it dated August 13, 1987 concerning
the opinion of City Attorney Keith Harper on grandfathered parking and some
recommended technical and conforming changes, Mr. Hildt reminded the
commission that, in addition, there are recommendations for improvements in
downtown parking other than those for charges in the zoning code. 'There is an
initial contribution of $15,000 in the mayor's budget for parking improvements.
This will be spent on the most cost effective, simple, space by space improvement
over the next year.
David Kahley, Executive Director, Main Street Program,,,passed out a proposed
amendment to the formula for calculating reduced parking requirements as
presented in the draft document. The memorandum dated August 1 , 1987
recommended a► Section 17.2 .100 in which parking requirements could be reduced
to 60X of the number that would otherwise apply with an additional reduction o
252 if the proposed building or expansion is found to contribute to the bort
Tovnisend Historic District. lair. ahle 's revision recommends an initial reduction
to 752 of the requirement and a subsequent reduction of 40Z. He demonstrated
that the resulting number of required parking spaces would remain the same, but
felt the new numbers initially gave away less and provided a stronger incentive
for new construction to gelate visually to the district. He gave some background
on the Downtown Historic Preservation Commission which was set up by the City
Council as an advisory group to provide tax incentives for those working o
historic buildings and to provide definite guidelines on hoer neer construction can
fit into historic districts.
Chairman Carman commented on fir. Buck's letter which urged that the
40 ordinance not be adopted without a program for which the monies would b
spent. Mr. Caravan thought ideally the program and the ordinance would be
adopted simultaneously.
lis. dater asked if it was legal for a city to take a fee "in-lieu n without a specific
y #
• fund in which the monies were placed.
Mr. Hildt said there were definite constraints on such money. It could only be
spent on those purposes for which the money was derived and has to be spent
within five years. He pointed out that the draft ordinance indicated that the
funds could not be spent until a parking 'improvement plan had been adopted. He
agreed with Mr. Buck, but said that because of time constraints he was
recommending that the ordinance be adopted at this time. Working on the
pariing plan is one of the City Council's top 13 priorities.
Mr.. McLarney asked hoer the original formula had been derived.
Mr. Hildt said the formula was based on anticipated needs for particular types of
building uses and came from practical experience in cities around the country.
The Port Townsend formulas were derived from the Auburn code.
Mr. Kahley quoted from the Urban Land Institute's publication on Downtown
Retail Development which spoke of the variables involved in determining parking
requirements. More parking spaces do not necessarily help if the requirement
keeps out new construction.
Mr. Kosec asked if there were any pending requests for variance from the
current code.
Mr. Hildt said that Union Wharf's variance request has been pending for the last i
seven months.
Mr. Tahley said he thought it was best to be prepared for future development
projects and to make the development process as understandable as possible.
Chairman Carmen agreed that developers didn't like to come to an area that
didn't have specific guidelines and rules. He sees adoption of the ordinance as the
first step in the process.
Mayor Shirley thought it was impossible to develop an old building and comply
with the present ordinance. The proposed ordinance gives some flexibility and
accomplishes within reason what needs to be clone.
Ms. dater said that lir. King's report (Washington State DOT) could be applied to
the parking plan and contained nothing critical to the draft ordinance. She
moved that the proposed amendment suggested by Mr.,. Kahle r to Section 17.2 .loo
e included in draft #5 and that the commission recommend to the City Council
approval of draft #5 as amended. Mir. McLarney seconded. Mr. Hildt asked if the
motion included in the amendments the proposed technical and conforming
changes suggested in the memorandum dated August l3, 1987. Ids. Slater said It
. did. The motion passed 5-0.
Mayor Shirley said he is on an Assoc. of Washington Cities legislative committee
enrich is going to push for a bill to disallow state agencies from preempting local
zoning and Shoreline's decisions. He also referred to the Manufactured Housing
Assoc. Their lobbyists are going to make the rounds of local communities ie and try
o establish some way to accommodate manufactured homes.
i
A ,
a
4
I
ti
Ib Mr. Hildt said that one way to approach the issue of manufactured housing was
to write into the zoning language precisely what was desired in terms of housing.
The builders of manufactured hones would attempt to meet the requirements.
Mayor Shirley said that if there was an opportunity for commission members to
testify before the committee he would let therm know.
IV. New Business
Application leo. 1087-02 James C. McCarron, moi. .
Street Vacation 1136 Tater Street
Mr. Grimm and Mr. Tavernakis were assigned to the committee. The hearing
cute was set for December i ,, 1987.
V• Announcements
There will be a workshop meeting November 12J. 1987. Mr. Hildt hopes to arrange
a discussion of 'Fences and Kedges" to determine whether the code follows the City
Council's intent,
The net scheduled business meeting is November 19, 1987. on the agenda are
Short Subdivision Application No. 987-01 by Monte Matthews,s, Ailey Vacation
Application No. 1087-01 by Nordland Construction, and Variance Application No.
987-03 by Lunda and Bjorn Lunde.
Mr. Hildt said that the proposed elevator for the City Mall will impact the
commission's meeting room. He asked that commission members consider holding
their meetings in the City Council Chambers,
1. Adjournment
The me0ting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. :.
Alice Ting, Secreta yv
To: Planning Commission
From: David l ahley
Proposed amendment to Section 1 . 28 . o
Date: October 29, 1987
r
17 For uses
. 2U- 100 DQwntoHn- Uuou--Reducad Ra
within the Downtown Parking District the parking
2 requirements prescribed in Section 17 .28 . 0 o are reduced to
3 seventy-five percent of the requirements which would
otherwise apply, provided that for uses ing
8 xe atoate -
ftte-raak9 JL W JLf #
10 be established in-a-1propoacd building or b ding c pain ion_
11 tho des rt Townsend, Historic_
'I jase
13 Histori st .*c forty percent the r u re rents which
14 would otherwise apply to such uses- within the Downtown
15 Parking District is further subtracted from said
16 requirements.
This change to the proposed two step reduction formula would
results .in identical end product requirements when both formulas
are applied_ However, this changing of percentages significantly
supports the community goal of enhancing the historic district,
by creating a strong incentive for new construction to relate
visual to the district.
The following example for a building are uiring,� parking spaces
under the current ordinance 'is as follows
October 29, 1987
Proposal favoring historic preservation
1.5 spaces
11. 25 spaces
1 . 25 spaces
6.75 spaces
August 13, 1987 Proposal
1.5 spaces
spaces
9 spaces
6.75 spaces
' FOR PLAITING COMMISSION HEARING THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, P .
[DRAFT
•
ORDINANCE .
1 AN ORDINANCE relating to parking requirements, defining
2 Downtown- Parking District, amending Section '17-.-:28. 020 of the Port-
2 Townsend Municipal Code to extend the area in which the off-
4 street parking required for a particular use must be located,
reducing certain parking requirements in the Downtown Parking
8 District, encouraging retention or creation of ori--street parking
spaces, and permitting payment of a fee in-lieu-of parking; spaces
in satisfaction of certain parking requirements. .
9 WHEREAS, past studies -of parking in downtown Port Townsend
9 �have questioned whether the pe ific parking requirements of the
11 Port Townsend Municipal Code are appropriate and practicable for
12 current conditions, and;
3 WHEREAS, _ specific recommendations were made in the "Downtown
14 Parking rdi'nance Review" cohducted in 1988 by Doug Baker of the
15 Association of-Washington Cities and in a- recent City staff
16 discussion paper entitled "Parking in Downtown..Port Townsend".V _. .. . .
17 and; .
18 WHEREAS, over the past several months numerous community
19 meetings have been Meld at which many citizens have provided
information -and suggestionB regarding. parking in downtown Port ..
1
dr
i
RD
AFT
1
•
Townsend, and;
EAS the Port Townsend Planning Commission has conducted
3 a- public forum and hearing and submitted on _. 9
4 1987 , recommendations for certain changes to the Port Townsend .-
'4r
5 Municipal code relating to parking, and;
s WHEREAS, the City council finds that downtown Port Townsend
presents unique parking concerns, including but not limited t
p �*
8
the following
.._
. i Available parking is net evenly distributed throughout
10 the downtown area, nor is parking supply generally located in
11 close proximity to peak demand locations, .
12 2 Present and anticipated parking shortages indicate an w.,.
13 increasing need for additional on- and off-street parking spaces,
1Because many redevelopment opportunities are within
15 existing historic buildings, and because available downtown land
16 area is so constrained by the bluff and the waterfront, desirable
17 future development may be thwarted by paving requirements which
18 no longer serve the orderly redevelopment of downtown Port
19 Townsend, and
20 (4) Certain parking improvements may be more efficiently
2
i
4
Jk
i F #
i RAF {
made through the flexibility afforded: by a fee-in-lieu of parking
2 spaces alternat3_ , and;
8 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there will be no
4 sign`. l ant adverse environmental impact as a result of these
5 amendments, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of PORT
7 TOWNSEND AS FOLLOWS: . .
fi
8 A new Section 17.08. 148 is hereby added to the Port
Townsend Sunicipa17-Code_. to read as follows
to 17-.-08. 148- -- Downtown. District. "Downtown Parking _
11 District" means that area included in the C--II, C-III and P-
12 - I. zoning-.districts from AdmILralty Inlet to Tan Buren Street
13 between Port Townsend--Bay and Jefferson Street, excluding-.-
14
cluding-.14 the P--I -zoned.-block bordered by- Van Buren, Jefferson, -
15 Harrison and Washington Streets. —.0
16 Section 2, Section 1 .2 _ 020 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code
17 is hereby amended- as follows: -
17,21. 02.0
ollows: - -
0 . off-street parking facilities shall be
1
D C)
1 located as heremnafter specified; where a distance �s
2 specified, such distance shall- be the walking distance
measured from .the nearest pol.nt of the parking facility t
the nearest point of the building that. such facility is
required t ' serge:
6 ( 1) For one and two family dwellings: on the same lot with
the building they are required to serve;
8 (2) For multiple dwellings: not more than one hundred
feet;-
10
eet;-10 For hospitals, sanitariums, homes for the aged, rooming
11 and boardinghouses, fraternity and sorority houses: not
12 more than three hundred feet;
1 4 in i - - i .t
i
14 or immediately -adjacent to the Downtown Parking Matrict..
15 .� For uses other than those specified above: not more
16 than five hundred feet. .�
17 Section- .. _ A neO Section 1 .2 . l0 is hereby added to the Port
18 Townsend Municipal Code to read as follows:
1 t - For uses
20 within the Downtown Parking District the parking
• r
21 requirements prescribed in Section -17-.28. 0are reduced o-
22 SVIV percent of the requirements which would otherwise
23 apply, provided that for uses within a building which is
24 certified by the United States Secretary of the Interior as
5
i
ti
5
R D
AFT
�ownsend
property which contributes the Fort Historic
''
t
2 District and the rehabilitation, restoration of
reconstruction of which complies with the Secr terry of the
ha '- n percent
Interior's Standards for re b��.�tat�o _
f the requirements which would otherwise apply to such use
within the Downtown Parking District is further subtracted
from said requirements .
Section 4, A ' yew Section. 17 .28. 110 is hereby added to the Fort
Townsend Municipal Code to road as follows: 2
10 17 ,28 ,.110 -S3.err 3. -Paces, 1 the proposed
..�_5
l parking area plan submitted pursuant to Section 1 . 2 . 099
would require elimination of one or more existing on-street
13 parking spaces, the parking requirements prescribed .in `
14 Section l _2 . 080 are increased by two off-street.-spaces for
15 each on-street space to be eliminated,, provided than such �.
16 requirements are reduced by two off-street: parking spaces
17 dor each n--street parking space created or restored by said
18 plan.
19 ec"ti_o _-� A now Section 1 _2 . 120 is hereby added to the Port
20 Townsend Municipal Code to read as follows
2 Within the Downtown
Parking District, the Board of Adjustment may waive all or .
5
r
r
I
t , r
w i
f
1 part of the parking requirements prescribed .in Section
2 17 .28. 080 upon request by the 'applicant to pay a fee into
the Parking Improvement Fund pursuant to Section 17 .2 . 130
in-lieu-of furnishing the required parking spaces. In
making its determination on the request, the board shall -
8 :- consider: f
7 (1) The extent to which the parking requirements which
apply to the proposed development impose a particular
hardship upon the applicant; 4
10 Whether granting the request would be unreasonably
11 burdensome to other} property owners in the owrtown 'ar .ng
12 District; and
13 3 Whether the granting of the request would lead to a
14 better overall result in order to encourage appropriate land
15 uses, improve pedestrian circulation and achieve better
18 parking design, than would strict adherence to the parking
17 requirements of this chapter.
18 The fee-in-lieu of parking spaces shall be $4,270 per space
19 required or such other amount as the City Council shall
28 hereafter set by ordinance. i
2 cfort hew Section 1 .28. 38 i hereby added to the port
f
w
RED
AFT
1 Townsend Municipal code to read as follows
2 17.28 - 13(l Tn-lieu Parking F ea--Fund Croated--Parkin
There is hereby created in the. city
" ' treasury-a---special- fund designated- the "Parking Improvement- --
5 Fund" into which In-lieu, parking fees shall be deposited to
be expended only for public improvements ements listed in an
Parking Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council. The
City, Council- may from time to time direct that other monies
be transferred into the fund to be used for the purposes of
10 the fund.
I The fund shall be used exclusively for planning,
Ji
12 acquisition, design, development, construction, financing,
13 maintenance and operation of off-street parking facilities
14 within or immediately adjacent to the Downtown Parking
15 District, all consistent with the specific project
16 priorities set forth in the Parking Improvement Plan a
17 hereafter adopted or amended by the City Council .
18 Section- Somerabi I i tz In the event any one or more of the
. provisions of this,.ordina.nce shall for- any reason be held to be
20 invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other
21 provision of this ordinance, but this ordinance shall b
22 construed and enforced as if such invalid provision had not been
contained therein; provided, that any provision which shall for
7 .�
� ins ILI
y
1 any reason be held by reason of its extent to be invali
t
a
4
•
R
.. To: Planning Commission
From: Michael Hi1.dt }�
City Planner-01
Re: Proposed amendments relating to downtown parking.
Date: August 13, 1987
Public review of the proposed zoning amendments relating. to.
downtown parking has raised the question of " rand at er,o
provisions pertaining to buildings In existence prior* to
enactment of the zoning code. After review of past
,interpretations and decis--ions-,'..-City Attorney Keith harper and I
believe that the corredt interpretation of 17 ' 2 _ 030 iB that the
portions of buildings existing _prior~ to August 13, 1971., are not
sub j est to parking requirements due to change of use.
Mr. Harper will convey his interpretation in writing.
Accordingly, the reductions ire parking requirements included in
the recommendations which relate to existing historic buildings
are moot and the following amendment to the draft ordinance is
recommended: H
Section -3, .A' new Section 17.28- 100 is hereby added to the Port
Townsend Municipal Code to read as follows
17 , 28, 100 'DQwntowa -- For uses
within the Downtown Parking District the parking
2 requirements prescribed- in Section 17 .28. 0are reduced to
3 sixty percent of the requirements which would otherwise
apply, provided that for uses within-a-building-which-
5 eertif ied-by-the--United-States- eeret r -o -the-Interior-as
a-property-wh eh-eentributes- o-the-Port- Tor s n -- s ri
etriet-and-the-r.e a i t tion;-rent rationlo
reconstruction-o --which-complies- it -the- eeretar -o -t ie
InterierLs-Standards-for-rehabi itation) )tQ .UI .biishe - �._
1 .in a-pro-posed buil i hul" l ing expan io -h-e- desi of
11 which is found by the Port ToEnsen Historic Presery-ation
Comm12 ion ion to cent .ibu�te to_ the Port_ Townsend Histo .
13 District, twenty-five percent of the req i-rements. which -
1 -would otherwise apply to such used within the Downtown
15 Parking District .is further subtracted from said
16 requirements .
The intent is to provide a bonus reduction for _future projects
which are compatible with existing historic buildings.
�1�
• r
r
.r
r f
In addition, there are a few technical and conforming changes
1. Page 6, line ; subsection 3 would read better as follows
(3) Whether the granting the request would lead to a better
overall result than would strict adherence to the parking,
requirements -of this Chapter for the purposes -o .encouraging.-
appropriate
couraging.-appropriate lana use, improving pedestrian circulation and
achieving better park'Ing - design.
2. Page 6. line 20 .5; add
Any such agreement shall be made in compliance with
applicable state laws. --+ -
. Page 7 , line ; delete "an" . -.._..
Thank you.
-2-
FIORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSIONCITY HALL
4
y y
540 WATER STREUr
PORT TOWNISEMDs, WAS1 INUTON 9B360
t
R
To: Downtown Parking Participants
from-
i l ildt
. , - Michael -
City Planner
Re: - Public Hearing: Thursday, August .113, 7:30 PM,
iBasement, City Pa-ll -
Pate: August 5. 1987 .
F
The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on proposed
zoning amendments dealing with downtown parkifig on Auglist 13. rt
These amendments would .implement the regulatory improvements
included in the recommendations discussed at the Public Forum
conducted by the Commission on June 11. -
The effect of the proposed amendments would b # - ol.l
. Define a "Downtown Parking District" -- areal' included in the
C-11 , C-11 and P--I mooning districts from Admiralty Inlet to Van
Buren Street between Port Townsend Bay and Jefferson Street,
excluding the P- -zoned:block.--bordered h .. an Buren,,Jef fer on, .. . „
Harrison and Washington Streets (Post Office) *. -
2. Allow downtown parking requirements to be mot anywhere in or
adjacent to the downtown parking district..--- The current
requirement is within five hundred feet of the development.
. Reduce parking requirements within the Downtown Parking
0 District to sixty percent of the requirements which would
otherwise apply. For uses within a building which is certified-
by the United States Secretary of the Interior as a property -
which contributes to the Fort Townsend Historic District and the
s
•
•
r
rehabilitation, restoration of reconstruction of which complies
with the secretary of the Interior' Standards for
rehabilitation, twenty-five percent of the requirements which
would otherwise apply to such use within the Downtown Parking
District would be further subtracted these reduced parking
requirements.
. if the proposed development would require elimination of one
r more existing on-street parking spaces, the parking require-
ments
equi e-
me s would be increased by two off-street spaces for each n-
streFt space to be eliminated and, conversely, the requirements
wouldreduced by two off--street parking spaces for 'each on-
street parking space created or restored.
5. Within the - owntown Parking District, the City Council wound
be empowered to waive all or part of the parking requirements if
the developer chooses to pay a fee into the Parking improvement
Fund in-lieu-of furnishing the required parking spaces. In
making its determination the Council would consider whether the
parking requirements impose particular hardship upon the
proposed development; whether granting the request would be
unreasonably burdensome to other- property owners; and whether- the
request would lead to a better overall result than would strict
adherence to the parking requirements of the zoning code in order
to encourage appropriate land uses, .improve pedestrian
circulation and achieve better parker ng design.
The fee-in-lieu of parking spaces would be $4 ,270 per space
required. The council would be able to change the fee amount by
ordinance.
. A "Parking Improvement Fund" would be created into which in-
lieu parking fees would be deposited. These funds could be
expended only for public improvements listed in an adopted
Parking improvement Plan for planning, acquisition, design,
development, construction, financing, maintenance and operation
_
- of off-street-Rpar ing-facilities--within- or-imm :di ely-- djacent---
to the Downtown--Parking District. - - - -
Copies
istrict_ - _ _Copies of the draft ordinance and the discussion paper on
downtown parking are available at the Clerk-Treasurer's office in
City hall. please give me a call on 385-3000 if you have
questions.
The Commissioners hope to have the benefit of=--your comments
before making their recommendations to the city Council.
Thank you
�., �. +fir��'+ ; ��; , f{ ;j+•-+.
•
3
raft QQO Mendati.12na: Downtown n a r ng
11 Reduce parking requirements dovinto n
-- 0% of zoning code requirement
2. Allow an additional bonus reduction of 25% of parking
requirements for developments within an existing historic
building, or restoration of ars historic structure.
- i.e. , o ing code formula result X . 60 X .75 for
qualifying downtown project.
. Reduce parking requirement by two spaces for each on--street
space created by the development . Increase the requirement '
y two spaces for each on-street space eliminated by the
5
development.
4. Eliminate the proximity requirement.
- would allow developments to meet parking requirements
anywhere in downtown; current requirement is within
500 feet.
. Fermat payment of a fee in-lieu-of parking spaces.
developer given the option to pay a fee .into the
i
parking improvement fund in-lieu-of providing parking
spaces (est. fee $4270) .
- funds go to City's Parking Improvement Program
6 . Adopt Parking Improvement Program.
Dear term (within next three years) :
Improve signage.
Pave-'and strip existing hots for better efficiency-_
-
Reserve Jefferson Transit lot for lav"s and employees.
Develop *'park ing/pedestrian streets" diagonal
parking) _ consider:
_ Adams
- U Inc
Mad X' -
Soni-Wash ingt n-- (Taylor; to. Monroe
Monroe
-
Establish employee parking program
- designated free employee parking areas
employee parking stickers
- merchant discounts?
-- Strengthen parking enforcement
- Shuttle bus loop from Boat Haven to RV lot.
Long Term (beyond 1990)
- Develop municipal parking lot against bluff.
- Reserve property for future multi-level garage.
'T_ Remove parking from street ends south of Water street.
S . Es
tabl isb Parking and Business Improvement Area.
Assessment of businesses to help support parking
improvement program.
Do you wish to
• NAME (please print) ADDRESS present testimony?
YES NO
(�f.�%/C�L/Z ' �UG OPGbm t✓ dT' /c 5 9�3 6 f
O D
O O
O ❑
o ❑
0 0
o . o
o ❑
a ❑
� o 0
0 0
i
i
THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
F Property Owners Association
of
Part Townsend
October 20, 198'
Allan Carmen, Chairman
Port Townsend City Planning Commission
City Hall
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Mr. Carmen:
The Property Owners' Association of the Downtown Historic has
reviewed the draft parking ordinance and offers the following
comments; i
The Association applauds the City's efforts to address the downtown
parking situation in an orderly manner, with consideration for future
requirements. It also favors the effort to assist property owners by
lessening the parking requirements imposed by the current zoning
ordinance
The draft ordinance refers to a Parking improvement Plan to be
adopted by the City Council at some time in the future,. The
Association Bels strongly that this Parking Improvement Plan should be
developed and adopted first, and thea appropriate ordinances enacted in
order to implement the plan. For example, the draft ordinance allows
payment-fn-lieu. of off-street parking that go into a Parking
Improvement Fund* To allow these payments to go into a fund that has
no direction or stated objective to which the funds should be applied
would be inadvisable
It is the consensus opinion of the Association that to enact this
ordinance would be a case of "putting the cart before the horse" and
therefore, does not favor its enactment at this time nor in its present
form
The Association appreciates the opportunity to address the Planning
commission on this matter and is more than Willing to assist in the
development of the Parking Improvement Plan and its implementing
ordinances-.
Sincerely,
Parker Jay
President
c: Michael Hildt
Mayor Brent Shirley
Association Members
Association Council
Washington State Department of Transportation
State Aid Division
ALAN 0# KING, P-E,
LOCAL TRAFFIC SERVICES ENGINEER
Date: September 22, 19B7
Agency: City of Port Townsend
Project Number: K134
Thi 5 report was requested by Michael Hildt , City Planner to address parking
concerns wi th in. #he- downtown area o,f.th . .ity.-. Doc umen.t ---.furnished. i.ncIud d ._ .
Draft 5 of a position paper titled "Parking in Downtown Port Townsend" , a
loan copy of 'A Workbook for the Port Townsend Urban Waterfront" , and
"Street cape Design" for the Eater Street Historic Dir*trict , 85 Well aS Maps
f the area. A field review was performed on September 9, 1987, at which
time photos of the streets in the area were taken (copies included, numbers
458 thru- 475) .- Discussions were held with fed Str~ickl in, Publ it Wo? ;s Di -
rector ; David Kahley, Executive Director of the Port Townsend Civic Trust and
Mr. Hi ldt in regard to the problems to be addressed. The report will focus-
on
ocu -on some general observations and information anti will follow with appropri-
ate
ppropri--
ate parking Strategies:
General Comments
The value of parting troth off and on street is relative to the perceived
need. However , the love affair of Americans with the automobile and the
r e I a t i v freedom of travel it perr i t5 is unlikely to change in the near fu--
t ur e. As a result , the value of parking to a retail business is gener al l y - -
undere5t i mated# for without a parking place customer5 may go el sewhere and
wi thout customers the business f ai Is. Thus, the development -of- Zoning -re-
quirements to assure adequate parking along i th- changed, increased and or
new development. Without such requirements, businesses will eventually over-
come the problem, but not without significant 5trife and pressure f or the
'City" to solve the problem, sometimes forgetting they are the "City". Usu-
al
u-
al l y,. howeVer , par k-i ng -i --•l of t toy chance d- unpaved --unmanaged,-and un at tr ac-t%i-ve T C.
lots often prevail and competition often focuses away from the real business
at hand and the busines5e5 as a whole suffer. The nerd for development of
those -unpaved.,-.- -unman-ag-ed,rlotS -needs recognition, and f-unding,as.,a pri r.i.ty_of, . .�L
both old and new businesses to attract and retain both for a growing health
business environment.
Observation of the area and discussion With 5 of f indicates that most parking
problems presently are more of ,per eption and convenience than of Ii m iced
space. This would not be true during a very few days during the peak tourist
season in the summer , however it is generally unacceptable economically to
design for such relatively few events.
PACE I OF 6 FILE: K134.dDC `
4
; t
CITY-- OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT K.1.4 DATE. 22-Sep-87
While rehabilitation of historic buildings is clearly the focus in Port
Townsend, parking needs will still increase as business opportunities
increase. Limit on development often seem counter productive in the short
term but normally serve to enhance the business opportunities in the long
term. Such i5 the case with parking development requirements. A ddi ti oral
needs must be addressed to assure the overall health O'f the business
district. Those needy can and will be met in a variety oi stays. Some of der
buildings .. ill not be renovated and will disappear , some will suf f er from
fire and may not be replaced. Innovative pooled parking programs will emerge
as reeds outstrip availability. If the value ultimately warrants, parking
structures will be constructed. If the value of the businesses will not
warrant such expenditures then the relative need must be reevaluated.
The multiple use of- parking lots shDUld be a eriou ;-consideration ire any
commercial area. Theater audiences for example normally need parking eve-
nings only, churches predominantly on Sundays, professional offices weekday
working hours, etc. While it is often difficult to gain the cooperation of
independent businesses, it only mages good sense to share those resources
which would otherwise be underutilized, and ultimately contributes to the
well being of the businesses and community. Such shared opportunities should
be recognized in the zoning ordinances. This sharing however, most be care-
fully
are-
ful1y weighed and trategi-ed among the variou5 owners and the City to assure
both feasibility and value. Without such careful planning those opportunii-
ti es may well prove fruitless and serge_ oral y to discvUrage work abl a appl i ca-
tions.
Ultimately, the whole issue becomes one of political choices driven by the
economic needs and desires of the businesses and tesf:per~ed by the wi rhes of
• the community as a whole regarding aesthetic desires, As eras pointed out in
the Draft 5 Discussion Paper , there are no exact models to work from. The
communi.ty_.__ must _determine. what -is-acceptable -- in terms -- of "convenience0l... ,
�tregulat.ion" - and 'free enterprise.', and the_ compromi-se between - them. No
outside force can reasonably dictate that answer, only provide information on
how other communities have attacked the problem and information on statisti-
cal values for parking requirements for various types Pf businesses.
Parking Strate_q ie
11 Diagonal Parking
The primary concern expre sed by staff was the issue of diagonal parking
and its relative safety. While diagonal parking is an accepted prac-
tice, there are several considerations in using this strategy.
The rel at i ve saf et y of the motor i st s and pedestr ian s dep ends on the type
of vehicles involved and the speed and volumes &f traffic. Large ve-
hicles,
e-
hicles, high speed and large volumes decrease the safety to unacceptable
levels. (It asust be remembered that ' acceptable' i s a relative tern.
PAGE 2 OF 6 FILE: 1 34.doc .•.
F
CITY.,-OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT # `.134 DATE: 22-Sep-87
Typically, diagonal parking on a normal city bloc: will gain significant
numbers of parking spaces over parallel parking. Lost however is
street width of approximately 10 to 12 feet each side. Quincy Street is ,
similar to all of the downtown cross streets in width. It is estimated
at 54 ' of pavement width. Assuming minimal infringement onsidewalks
and allowing 4or soffse degree of poor parking habits, diagonal par k ng
would require approximately 16 feet each side. That would use 36 of the
available 54 leaving only 18 feet for two way tr o f i c; As the normal
width of Many RV ' s is 8 feet pus the mirrors, an extremely small dis-
tance
i -
tance for passing is left , creating a potentially hazardous situation.
At the very least , skilled driving is required and, unfortunately, not
all drivers are adequately skilled,, As can be readily seen, this width
problem will also severely restrict traffic voluffies as drivers slow dean �
for safety concerns.
In addition, visibility is severely restricted (particularly with pickup
campers, vans and V `s) . Parking distance from intersections and curb
cuts should be increased to accommadate that restriction and to allow
adequate turning radius to avoid infringement on the opposite lane.
With these considerations in mind, it would be my general recommendation
to use diagonal parking only on very low volume access type streets with
1 i mi ted or no through traffic and low speeds. It is with rel u c t a n c e
that l would consider it even there due to the greater numbers of sight
restrictive vehi-cles that are noir popular. Diagonal parking on through
arterials, including Jefferson, Washington, Dater , Quincy and Taylor
should be avoided. �
mother option to consider to increase parking capacity through the use �
of ddaganal parking while minimiAzing safety hazards is through the use
of one-way couplets. For example, Madi5on could be rude one way north
with Adams as the return one way south.. Other combinations could be
considered also, depending on the acceptance of this option by the com-
munity. The advantage is decreased directional conflicts coupled with
increased capacity. This option could be explored in greater detail i4
desired.
Pirki ng Space Requirements . .
The Table of Minimum Standards, Municipal Lode 1 ; B.080 is generally in
accordance with, and on the conservative side of , the recommendations of
the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, table 21-1 , page 647. These figures are gen-
erally aiased at providing for a average reasonable afflount of park-ing
spaces.
PAGE 3 OF 6 FILE: K134. doc *'
S
CITY...-OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT # KIN DATE: 22-Sep-87
It should be recognized that streets are primarily for the purpose of
moving traffic safely and efficiently, with parking as a secondary con-
venience function. The ITE figures also recognize the problem mentioned
in the Discussion Paper wherein development of off street parking often
reduces on strut spaces. With City f i gores being SDmewhat conserva-
tive, they already allow for a higher degree of on street parking.
Careful thought and ronsideration should therefore be taken before re-
duction of these requirements are implefftented#
31 Parking Proximity Requirement
E1 i ori nati On of the proximity requirement should only be done recogni Z i ng
the precedent- set and the diffiu-1ty--of- changing direction in the
future. Modification with exceptions and or stipulations is much easier
to deal with from the perspective of possible future needs but more dif-
ficult
if-
ficult to administer.
It should also be considered that present problems generally appear to
be a matter of convenience, and that elimination- of thi s r e q u i r e m e n t
jai l 1 likely compound the convenience issue as demand increases. As the
requirement exists, it seems - o be quite reasonable considering the dis-
tances pedestrians will normally consider acceptable in a small commu-
nity.
4. Fee in lieu of Parking Spaces
The fee in lieu of parking spaces seems an excellent option. It pro-
ides a voluntary alternative to the business while still recognizing �
the need.
couple of pitfalls should be recognized as presently proposed. an-
agement and maintenance costs are not addressed and will certainly be-
come difficult for the city to deal with. Maip enance particularly will
become a. problem ragging from litter cleanup - to pavement rehabilitation
in the- f u.ture. -- Also, the requirement---f-or expenditure. within five years
would require a solid pian, a willingness and ability to proceed, and
alternative short term financing to cover the portions not yet collected
due to slow growth, etc. . Alternatively, a willingness to refund the "
fees wi thout resolution of the parking problem must be demonstrated.
Clearly the fees should be dedicated to the problem and not placed in
the general fund, but provision- for the unknowns- rust also be made.-- - ----
Signage lmproverft nts
The desire f or de et Dpment of directional raigni tag unique to the
character of the area is certainly understandable but care must be taken
to re m al n i n coMpl i ante with the legal requirements of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Mr. Stricklin has a copy) , and to
assure that such signing does not conflict with regulatory and warning
signing needs and requirements*
PAGE 4 OF 6 FILE: K134.doc '
i
3
CITY- OF OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT # Ki'134DATE: 22-Sep-87 �.
MUTCD Section 2B-31 , Urban Parking and Stopping Signs, states ". . . the
signs shall conform to the standards of shape, color, location and use.
The proposal being considered does not do so. A di sCui on with Mayne
Gruen, State Traffic Engineer , who is on the National Committee reveal
that similar proposals have been cDn5istently rejected due to the
difficulty of maintaining consistency in signing.
Section D- , Street Mame Sign, allows use of a symbol or letter
designation to identify the governmental jurisdiction. It is suggested
to focus on an appropriate logo for this appl i cati o . If this is
pursued, it is suggested to develop one with severe simplicity in mind
and which can be reco ni-Zed from approximately a city bl ock di stance.
Removal from street signing entirely would be most desirable for' any
other application in order to be' i n clear compliance.
question was also raised by staff as to appropriate locations of
parking resr i cti on signing. Location is nearly always a problem due to
the unique features of each street. MUTCD Section 2B-32 gives general
guidelines. It should be need that in the downtbwn port Townsend area,
signing is already quite busy and care should be:' taken to minimize o
street signing to avoid confusion and detraction from necessary si gni ng.
Portable business signs were noted its several locations. These types of
signs should be discouraged to both minimize confusion ' and to protect
visibility for both motorists and pedestrians.
The " treet5cape Design" document details well the overall view of the
street and the impact of signs in general . The Sign Study section be-
ginning on page 2 should be tempered by the above di5cu5 ion of the re-
quirements of the MUT D. In addition, location of signs as shown on
page ll should be modified to reflect standardized height requirements
noted in MUTED sections 2A-23 of 7 feet to the bottom of the primary
sign i n urban areas. The proposal meets the recommended lateral clear-
ances in section 2A-24. Other signing location considerations are cov-
ered in the MUTCD1 both in section 2A-21 , page --8 through 2A-12 as
well as in the individual sections on each sign.
. strengthen Parking Enforcement
Such enforcement is a perennial problem for nearly all juri sdi cti ons.
While virtually unanimously disliked, it should be recognized as an
important part of maintaining order and consistency of use.
7. Downtown Shuttle Bus Loop
This recommendation should be carefully considered. While normal
parking may not be a problem, such service should he considered at peal:
event times to B110W f Dr parking outside the downtown area. The
difficulty of maintaining schedules during off-peak: tines may preclude
its use on a regular basis, however con5i der at i on of the numbers of RV's
and specific events may afford an excellent opportunity.
PARE 5 OF 6 FILE: K134.dDC
w
CITY.- OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT # K117_14 DATE: 22-Sep-87 ,
Long Term
Both of the parking facility recommendat i ons considered in light of the
above discussions appear to be appropriate. While present costs and
parking problems likely preclude the immediate con truction, acqui si--
tion of the properties would be Most desirable. If the solutions rec-
oifimended for reduced parking occur and growth occur s , economic feasibil-
ity
easibil--
ity will become probable. if they do not , the property can always b
used for other purposes consistent with the dDwntown;
One additional observation spade in the field review is a need for consistent
treatment of vegetation, trees and shrub5 particularly, to maintain adequate
sight distances. Vegetation should be trimmed to heights of at least 8 feet
to as ur e si slot for higher vehicles such as trucks and RVs and l a t e r al
clearances shi3uld be considered in both placement and maintenance of ves ta-
i on. Not only will safety be served, but the street view will generally be
improved.
Other recommendations i n the position paper appear to be sound and meritse-
rious consideration. Bear in mind the discussions above and the political
nature of the problems di5cuss thoroughly with the residents and business
people and satisfactory solutions will emerge.
} PAGE 6OF & FILE: K13 . doc `