Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102804 Ag Min · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Building #204, Fort Worden State Park & Conference Center 7:00 pm (Please note location) October 28, 2004 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes ~ September 2, 2004, and October 14, 2004 V. Unfinished Business VII. New Business Consultant Presentation & Planning Commission Work-Study Session: Draft Parking Code Amendments VI. Upcoming Meetings 12/2/04 - Public Open House & Work-Study Session - ESAs/BAS VII. Communications VIII. Adjournment · · · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Berg called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in Building 204, Fort Worden State Park & Conference Center. II. ROLL CALL Chair Berg announced that due to physical reasons Mr. Irvin has resigned from the Planning Commission effective immediately. Other members answering roll were Lyn Hersey, Alice King, Cindy Thayer, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh, and Steven Emery; Jeff Kelety arrived at 7:07 p.m. Also present was Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, Consultant for the Comprehensive Plan Update. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Ms. Thayer made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Randels seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . September 6.. 2004 -- deferred from last meeting Ms. Thayer made a motion to accept the minutes of September 2, 2004, as corrected. Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. October .li. 2004 Ms. Thayer made a motion to accept the minutes of October 14, 2004 as written. Ms. King seconded. All were in favor. Chair Berg explained that Mr. Irvin's resignation is due to his physical condition and ongoing treatment. Mr. Irvin wanted everyone to know he has been honored to serve with such a distinguished body of Planning Commissioners and is disappointed he cannot complete his term. Ms. Hersey asked that they request City Council as quickly as possible to prepare a letter and resolution thanking Mr. Irvin for all his efforts on the Planning Commission. Chair Berg concurred stating Mr. Irvin has been a very effective Planning Commissioner. As Chairman he will call the Mayor and suggest they do a Council resolution. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none VI. NEW BUSINESS -- Workshop Draft Parking Code Amendments -- Work-Study Session Mr. Toews, Consultant, reported there is significant policy direction and narrative guidance in the 1996 Comp Plan that has gone without effective implementation. Some incremental steps to modify tb ordinance were taken in 1997 and again last year. He gave background on the offstreet parking and loading ordinance stating that prior to 1990 there were no clear requirements, and the SEPA process was used to condition proposals based on City policy. The code the City did adopt was based on an outdated City of Auburn model. Before "smart growth" and new "urbanism" codes had parking ratios tied to various land uses based on square footage of gross floor area, dating back to the ITE manual. Most were based on suburban models from the 60s and 70s, not looking at offstreet parking in Port Townsend. He noted the ratios do a great job of providing sufficient parking for uses at peak demand times, typically the week before Christmas, and in many instances provide excessive off-street parking. Mr. Toews noted the City adopted and has in its current code a maximum limit for retail uses; nevertheless, most of the parking ratios in the current code are conservative. He thought Safeway was the only prmit applicant Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 1 · · · that has provided more parking than required. Permit applicants have found the requirements, in many instances, to be quite difficult to comply with, particularly in the National Register Historic District, in both downtown and uptown C-III zoning districts. The current code has an outright exemption in GIll for new uses, adaptive reuse and redevelopment in historic structures, and a 100space exemption for new development in GIll. That 10-space exemption still has not been sufficient to spur infill development on the remaining parcels in the commercial historic district (CHD). Principal lots currently devoted to off-street parking are next to the Green Eyeshade, Maritime Center property, the parcel leased by Hot Dog John, and some other parcels currently dedicated to off-street parking, e.g., next to April Fool, Bishop Building and the parking lot next to Swains, another major source of ofIstreet parking. The parking study inventory in GIll downtown shows the vast majority of availrole parking is on-street; a low percentage of the overall is off-street parking, although not insignificant. Mr. Toews began reviewing proposed major changes and stated in many respects they represent a significant level of deregulation. Revisions -- key recommendations: Essentiallv exempt from off-street parking and loading requirements, not only in the C-III zoning district but all uses within the limits of the National Register Historic District including: the uptown residential areas. The entire area is obviously where most of the development activity took place in the 19th Century. Many of the old homes do not have garages and didn't make provision for offstreet parking, but Mr. Toews thought most individuals building today on available infilllots seek to provide a garage and offstreet parking. To be consistent with what they are doing elsewhere in the commercial historic districts, the proposal is to simp!, exempt that entirely. The result is a domino effect throughout the rest of the code, e.g., in the GIll zoning district, fee-in-lieu provisions; paying up to $3,660 per space to the City for other parking improvements instead of providing offstreet parking. Mr. Toews noted that when you look at the composite policy direction and narrative in the Comp Plan, and he also thought recommended in the Kittleson and Associates parking study, the code changes couldn't be viewed in isolation. The only way these changes can work effectwely is if they happen in concert with other steps that are outside the code. Otherwise, there could be considerable adverse impacts to eliminating the ofIstreet parking. One thing is to encourage turnover for the existing spaces in the commercial coe, e.g., pricing on-street parking, metered parking downtown; another occasionally considered is a parking benefit district, essentially like a limited improvement district where the property owners within the limits of a certain area essentially agree to participate and pay into it in order to provide for parking improvements and other nOll-motorized improvements within the area covered by the parking benefit district. For the overall strategy to succeed, there are a number of other strategies that will have to be pursued in concert with these proposed code changes if these were to be adopted. Q Mr. Kelety. That makes complete sense, except the only thing in our purview right now is the decision on this ordinance. Is it correct that we cannot legislate the other components -- that comes out of Council? A Mr. Toews. That is correct, although it would be entirely appropriate should the Planning Commission determine that these changes are appropriate and that you wish to recommend proceeding wih them, that in your report and recommendation to Council, you remind them of a policy direction in their own Plan, that these changes need to happen in concert with other changes, that it is a contirigent recommendation. Q Mr. Kelety. Can we make a provisional recommendation; this is our vote based on . . .? As we go into this discussion, he would welcome community feedback. When they tried to take a few parking places away, there was a big outcry. We are not taking parking spaces away here, butin a sense we are limiting it. It is not simple. A Mr. Toews. Procedurally, you are absolutely right. They are obviously going to be taking these proposed changes forward to the Parking Committee and getting their feedback to bring back to tie Planning Commission, hopefully at least in written form in advance of the Public Hearing in January, and doing their best to get the word out and solicit testimony for that hearing. Q Mr. Randels: Did I correctly hear that these changes presuppose other changes that would take place, other than changing the code, and that one of those is metering? A Mr. Toews did not want to put it that strongly but said the composite policy direction of the Plan makes it clear this is part of the overall strategy; 1he decision makers should be reminded it is probably inappropriate to Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 2 · · · happen in isolation. It wouldn't be inappropriate for the City to move ahead and adopt these changes, if it had a strategy for moving down the track on the others and making some headw~ on them in a timely fashion. He did not think it would need to be a concurrent change, but the best chance for success would be if these were adopted in concert with other non-regulatory changes. Q Ms. Thayer: Is the Council pursuing those? A Mr. Toews: The Parking Advisory Committee has recommended them. The report from Kittleson and Associates has also recommended them as potential strategies to be pursued. All of these recommendations rather echoed the direction in the 1996 Comp Plan. Q Ms. Thayer: Is the Council proceeding with these? A Mr. Toews: Yes, they have been looking at changing the permitted time periods for parking within the downtown C-III. Q Mr. Randels, which is a means short of metering. A Mr. Toews: Yes. Q Mr. Randels: That is the policy direction; it may not be as far as something you would prefer? A Mr. Toews: Right. Q Ms. Thayer: I am concerned if we recommend approval ofthis and City Council decides not to do it until they get all the other components together. Are we going to be in the same boat we have with many of the other revisions that don't get approved? A Mr. Toews: In lieu of contingent or provisional recommendations, you could recommend adoption and at the same time say the way these have the greatest chance of ultimately succeeding in promoting a workable parking strategy for the CHD, is if they happen i1 concert with some other steps that are recommended in the Plan. You could make a case for adoption now, and reminding the Council of the existing policy direction in the Plan that they also need to pursue. Q Ms. Hersey: This is putting the cart before the horse. The Non-motorized Transportation Committee needs to make their recommendations either before or at leàst simultaneously, and Council takes both into consideration; not that we do this first. She wanted to know what the driver is that they ned to do this first, as opposed to working out the details and then coming back to this to make sure it works. A Mr. Toews: The driver, it is on the docket for Plan and Code amendments. We are operating now on a revised timeline, but nonetheless a deociline, that these changes implement at least partially the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Q Mr. Randels: Who makes the deadline? Is it self-imposed? A Mr. Toews: No, the deadline is in the State statute. The advice of the City Attorney, bocause we wanted to provide adequate time for the Parking Committee to weigh in on these changes and also because revisions to Chapter 19.05 best available science were not going to be done by the December 1 deadline, has recommended essentially a schedule that has us at adoption in early spring 2005, essentially before a hearing on any appeal could be heard before the Western Hearings Board. Ms. Hersey said she is uncomfortable with this. Ms. Thayer had a concern going forward with this until they know what the rest of the recommendations are going to be that will supplement this. Mr. Kelety: We cOHld work two ends at the same time. The committee doing what it is going to do comes in here, shares our material and we share theirs. We can even ask Council to come into a joint session. He does not think they are stuck to a linear process. Ms. Hersey: Would like to hear before it changes. If they don't get any more offstreet parking, all of sudden they are in chaos downtown for 2,.3 years because they haven't implemented anything else to make it happen. She would like to see it be simultaneous or at least close to each other. Q Ms. Slabaugh: As the downtown goes right now, weare already exempt for any new developments. 3-4 lots. It is not like it is going to change the downtown area much of anything A Mr. Toews: It is an incentive for that infill development, but the impacts will be felt over a period of time. It is not like there is going to be an instant loss of offstreet parking and sudden chaos in the downtown. The big use that is lurking out there is the Northwest Maritime Center. Q Mr. Berg: The amount we are talking about here meshes with the downtown parkingproblem and is maybe 25% of what this is about. Most is about private property, standards, development regulations, what developers have to deal with when they want to develop a piece of property. He thought that does need to be dealt with; we should not let our worries about parking in downtown stop us from dealing with this whole issue. A Mr. Toews: That is right. The exemption for the National Register Historic District is one facet of what is proposed here. The Council could determine that the existing exemption thresholds are adequate for the time being Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 3 · · · until other programmatic efforts are pursued. Q Ms. Hersey: Are you saying that the Maritime Center and the Annex are exempt from having offitreet parking at this point? A Mr. Toews: No; parking calculations done by the City -- the Annex eats up a number of parking spaces in the lot there; the net requirement was something like 8 spaces, and he thought it actually winds up being a net loss in parking. The Maritime Center doesn't have any development permit applications before the City, and under current code would be subject to the current parking ratios in the table. What the exact nature of their proposal is in terms of mix and square footage of various uses is yet to be determined. Ms. Hersey: She did not think she had ever seen in any of the proposals of the Maritime Center that there is any parking onsite. Her thought is if they are going to be taking away more parking in that end of town plus impacting it with more things; if we are not going to ask any more off street parking and hope what gets produced as far as alternative type will work. . She is a little concerned; it is always great on paper but it is the actuality. Q Mr. Randels: Sensed they were being asked 10 address a narrow piece of a big issue, and are grappling with that because they are a Planning Commission. As such, they ought not just look at a narrow statutory thing, but should be looking at the big picture. That is their job, and therefore he is mcomfortable about this. It seems the Planning Commission job is to be able to look the whole issue one way or another and make recommendations. He did not see they are being asked to do that, but something short of what he perceives to be their job. Ms. Thayer: All they are really being asked is to update the offstreet parking and loading. Mr. Randels concurred saying that is where he has a problem. That is just a piece of a much bigger issue. Ms. Thayer: It is already in the Port Townsend Municipal Code. We are just being asked to update that. Mr. Randels understood and said he wants to be asked to do more. Mr. Kelety: We are asked to do this because it fits in with Comp Plan amendments that have some statutory timeframe; because tInt is what we do -- help this process along and we agreed to do that. Being proactive we can choose to be active on this or we can take time and broaden that if we want. He asked if they should see more input, take a bigger chunk out of it. Chair Berg asked if there is something like a downtown parking task force and also a consultant's report, is that issue going to end up in front ofthe Planning Commission at some point? Mr. Toews replied his sense is that it will not, because the Planning Commission has a charge under the Planning and Enabling Act that relates to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations. Those are programmatic measures that are outside and separate from the Planning Commission. However, the Plan is a broad µ>licy document and provides direction on a whole host of issues and the impetus for those other programmatic actions. He is happy to get more information for them on what those other programmatic measures are that are currently underway, what the recommerlations are in the consultant's report, what the Parking Advisory Committee is doing currently and what they are contemplating in the way of recommended changes to on-street parking in the downtown area-- get that information back to the Planning Commission so they have a solid basis upon which to make a recommendation to Council. He explained what is proposed here is one way to implement Plan direction. There are other avenues that would also be consistent with implementing the Plan; one discussed a ample of weeks ago, bumping up that exemption threshold a little bit more in the CHD and lowering the fees-in-lieu a little bit along with other changes in parking ratios in the table. The Plan suggests we look at exempting the National Register HistoricDistrict from off- street parking; it does not mandate it. He thought there was room to tailor a recommendation to the Council and at the same time remind them this is one piece of a much larger puzzle you are familiar with, and that you urge them to not look at this in isolation. Ms. Hersey thought along the lines where they are feeling a little uncomfortable, they are being asked to do something they don't know the end result. To go one step further and look at the document and crosseàout language that has not been replaced, she thought is their problem. It is a pretty extreme document going from one to another. She said If she is going to change it this dramatically, she wants to know there are other benchmarks in place, that the way they change it will come to fruition. Ms. King said they were talking chicken and eggs; that they need to begin somewhere. She thought they can begin here, and Mr. Toews can fill them in. If there are concerns, they can be brought up as they go brough the document and ask what is proposed or what else is standing if the wings to mitigate this. Ifhe says there is nothing, they don't have to go over this and say it is too radical, but they have to discuss the document first. Chair Berg suggested they ask Mr. Toews to fmd about the consultant's report and other measures being proposed and put those in sort of documented form they can review sometime before they talk about parking at the Planning Commission. He proposed to go through the document. Consensus was to proceed. Mr. Toews proposed Planning Commission Minutes, October 28,2004/ Page 4 · to write something to get out to the Planning Commissioners in memorandum form before the holidays, hopefully before Thanksgiving. Ms. Slabaugh said her view was opposite that of Mr. Randels, that it seemed to her this is the big picture and the downtown historic area is a small part of this. This is from the Comp Plan's direction, the policy implementation of the big picture of the Comp Plan; a small part of this isthe Historic District where we do have some issues like the Maritime Center. She thinks they can ask if they agree with the big picture philosophy and then ask the ramifications of a specific place and deal with those issues when they get there, not to hy away from looking at the big policy concerns the Plan is directing they to try to finally get into code. Mr. Randels thought it was both a big and a little picture at the same time. He thought Mr. Berg's suggestion was wise, and they should follow it. Mr. Toews pointed out regarding what is radical, that it is critical to understand that adoption of the parking code in 1989 or 1990 was radical. Standards for offstreet parking that were mandated under that code essentially worked to preclude new development in many areas of town. That was radical. The proposal here is to try to fmd a way to implement Plan policies to promote infill and redevelopment to keep the CHD vital, to make it more vibrant and active and to attract people into the downtown. One of the ways to accomplish that is to encourage mode shift, alternative modes of transportation; rather than people climbing into the Hummer and expecting to park in front of the Rose when they go to the theater or expecting to fmd an offstreet parking space in the downtown; encouraging people to walk or use transit. He is amused when he talks to friends not living in the community and coming to visit Port Townsend on festival or other weekends, who ask what he is up to and he explains Ie is trying to help Port Townsend draft new parking code revisions. They say they have never had a problem fmding parking in Port Townsend. A lot of people who live here think there is insufficient offstreet parking, and parking isn't available in the downtown core. He feels there is a real perception disconnect between those people who over long years are used to being able to drive downtown and fmd a place to park, and visitors oftentimes coming in from urban or suburban areas. Both Ms. Thayer and Mr. Randels concurred and think it is a perceived problem. · Discussion turned to the draft document from the remaining revisions: Establish new lower minimum off-street parking requirements. Establish new maximum off-street parking requirements. Establish bicvcle parking requirements for new development. Provide an administrative variance process to increase or decrease parking standards on ª case-by-case basis. Draft 2004 Plan/Code Update Amendments: Chapter 17/72 PTMC Off-Street Parking & Loading It was determined to go through the document section by section. 17.72.010 Purpose§. A-C To align with the direction of the Comp Plan and more accurately describe what they are trying to accomplish; promote economic development and historic preservation through more efficient land use, infill development; to reduce the creation of new impervious surfaces by lowering the parking ratios. D-G Fairly standard. Q Mr. Berg: What are we losing in A-E? A Mr. Toews: Language that very specifically called out the existing exemption threshold which under the proposal would go away: B) would be irrelevant under the proposal; same with C) because the exemption is much broader, that language is irrelevant; same with D) in-lieu; E) seemed unnecessary because they are setting both minimum and maximum standards (referenced unde1Ç above.) · 17.72.020 Applicability and exemDtions. (Referenced Ms. Hersey's earlier comments);ß, G, 9 and B all highly complex extmption language that relates to the current standards that would be exempt-- adaptive reuse; renovation; redevelopment within historic structures. Provide a parking credit of 10 spaces for new development. Language is proposed to be eliminated in favor of a clear and simple exemption for all new construction and land uses established, changed or relocated Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 5 · within the National Register Historic district. Q Ms. Hersey: You are saying that now they don't have to have any offstreet parking at all? A Mr. Toews: Correct. But understand, currently adaptive reuse, changes of use, and redevelopment of existing historic structures are exempt under the current code. What isn't exempt is new development that would require more than 10 off street parking spaces. One could argue there is inequity in treating owners of vacant infill lots differently than owners of historic structures. Q Mr. Randels: If you turn the Green Eyeshade in to a restaurant, that would be exempt; but, if you take the lot next door and make a restaurant, that is not? A Mr. Toews: Correct Q Ms. Slabaugh: That is the way it is currently; this proposal would make it equal? A Mr. Randels & Ms. Hersey: Neither would have any parking. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Currently, the only thing that is not exempt is the empty lots, of which there are very few? A Ms. Hersey: This is not exempt; have to have off.street parking. Mr. Randels: That is one reason why they are still empty. Mr. Toews: What is created -- they are exempt from vehicular parking, but there are new bicycle parking standards recommended in the Parking Table that would be mandatory for all uses, whether new construction; or renovation, adaptive reuse of an historic structure. Q Ms. Slabaugh: In the Historic District too? A Mr. Toews: Everywhere. Q Ms. Hersey: Did you ever consider offstreet electric car parking as part of the big picture besides just bicycles? . A Mr. Toews: Mr. Emery raised that 2 weeks ago. They considered it, but he couldnt fmd any dimensional standards that related. Q Ms. Hersey: It is too new, but the cities have to allow golf carts/electric cars to be on our streets. It is a part of who we are in Port Townsend; we should do something to help. · Ms. Thayer: Would think 1hey would do a parking space just like anybody else, even though they are much smaller; reconfiguring parking spaces just to allow for however many there are in town at this point. Mr. Emery: It is defmitely a trend. It is not something that will be a Rd; this is permanent. Ms. Hersey: It is good for the environment; it is-good for Port Townsend. Q Mr. Kelety: We can deal with that in specifics? A Mr. Toews: Concurred. Q Mr. Emery: Are you going to designate for ride share spaces? Maybe Ðke two large spaces, cut them up into 3 and call it an electric car space, or green car? A Mr. Toews: Did not want to get ahead of himself. One thing in-lieu of trying to develop very specific requirements, both for ride share and also electric vehicles, what he did instead after looking at a number of other codes, is provide waiver provisions. Maybe the waiver provisions should not only be for va-iance provisions, not only for the standards for the number of parking spaces, but also for dimensional requirements. In certain instances, if it was a use like the City coming and changing its entire fleet over to electric vehicles, instead of doing a ¡mking calculation based on the standard parking spaces, that alternative dimensions could be proposed. There is a kind of safety valve for that in the proposed variance provisions that are included. C. Exemptions for upper floors of commercial and mixed use buildings that lie outside the Historic District. If there is multi-story development in a new mixed use center for additions or new development, for instance within the Gateway GII, that type of development would not be counted towards the ovt1'all parking requirement. It would be ground floor that would be calculated for offstreet parking. · Q Ms. Hersey and Mr. Randels: What is the reasoning behind that? A Mr. Toews: The reasoning is the same as for GIll, to promote more efficient land use, to encourage a form of development encouraged in the Comp Plan and isn't happening particularly in the mixed use suBdistricts. Q Mr. Emery: Thought in the last meeting they used the San Juan and F Street properties as a good example. By the time you have offstreet parking, etc. set up, there is little place left to put the buildings, sidewalks, etc. A Ms. Slabaugh: We used that as an example. All the parking requirements would make it impossible; by the Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 6 · · · time you add all the spaces yoo need for all the kinds of uses, there is no land left. Ms. Hersey: the San Juan Commons just expanded their parking lot because they had so many cars they weren't able to park them all; there was a need. Ifwe took away the incentive for offstreet parking, where would those cars be for all the seniors? They would be on the public street where people are trying to bicycle. Q Ms. King: I don't suppose we are prohibiting people from making bigger parking lots if they want to? We are just not requiring it? A Mr. Toews: The new maximum parking thresholds are in most instances at least as much as is currently required or more. There would be an opportunity; again, there is the variance process where they could exceed even the maximum threshold inthe table if they provide solid rationale for why it is appropriate and necessary in a given circumstance. Q Ms. Hersey: It is senior housing, and they need to have their parking closer by, etc.? A Mr. Toews: If the minimum is something like 1 space in 3 units in a retirement home (probably not in the table), but they wish to provide more parking, the code is drafted so they probably could provide up to one 1 parking space per unit. If they' wish to provide even more, there is a variance procedure tley could go through as yet another safety valve, provided there is a solid rationale. Q Mr. Berg: If they could demonstrate that with the particular population they serve, every senior defmitely has a car and there are so many visitors per day and they næd the extra spaces, that would be the basis for a variance? A Mr. Toews: Right Q Mr. Randels: You recommended in the memo they eliminate minimums and let the market determine it. He was wondering why the same rationale doesn t apply to maximums, or to bicycles, or to any of the rest of this? Why have Big Brother say you can't do that but if you come and beg us and prove to us that it makes sense, maybe we will let you; when whoever wants to do it is responding to the market michever way he goes -- lower, higher, whatever? If the market makes sense in one direction, why doesn't it make sense in both? A Mr. Toews: If that is what the memo said, that was not what he meant to say. The idea was to provide greater flexibility for the market, broader bookends for the market to function in. Q Ms. Thayer: Because it's not functioning now. A Mr. Toews: Right now it is a requirement you provide at least this much parking. Set a new minimum, a lower bookend; but to limit impèrvious surfaces consistent with the Plan direction, also set a maximum. The point, it is not abolishing the low bookend; it is maintaining it, but shifting it over. It is trying to open up space hi which the market can function to more efficiently állocate mITe parking spaces; it is not eliminating a minimum parking requirement. Q Mr. Berg: But it is establishing a maximum where there never was one before? A Mr. Toews: There was for retail. . . . Q Mr. Berg: Limiting impervious surface, better mamging storm water? A Mr. Toews: Promoting more efficient land use. That said, to the extent that an applicant fmds that a maximum requirement is onerous and unduly limits them, there isa process to provide a safety valve so they can provide more parking if it can be demonstrated it is in fact appropriate and necessary to do so. Q Mr. Randels: So Safeway would have had to come and make that case? A Mr. Toews: They may not have been able to successfully make that case. 17.72.050 Expansion Gets back to the exemption within the National Register Historic District. Again some language he recalls' drafting in 1997. If the outright exemption in the National Register Historic District were to be pursued, this would be unnecessary. 17.72.060 Change of use. A. Changes simply made to correspond with the new proposed use table so the calculations make sense with that subsection. E. Language that relates to the concurrence exemption in the GIll zoning district that would be made irrelevant if the new exemption were to be pursued. 17.72.070 Mixed occupancies. A Retained unchanged. ß Proposed for deletion, he thought because of the new variance language later on the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 7 · · · Q Mr. Kelety: A) was already there. Multiple uses at San Juan and F, you couldrlt do anything? Ms. Slabaugh: That was presented at the last meeting. It was cumulative, added up as to requirements. Mr. Kelety: That is what is still here? A Mr. Toews: No. Mr. Randels: It is -- .070 'Q Mr. Kelety: ". . . uses shall be the sum of the requirements. . . computed separately." iA Mr. Berg: The upper floors got exempted. If you have more than one use on the main floor, like retail and office, you still have to calculate for both of those and add them up,but nothing on the upper floor. Mr. Toews: It is the requirement in the table and the size of the parcels available in the zones. When you look at the size of a parcel in a mixed use zoning district, the zones are small, and if you look at locating a mllti- !story building in that zone with the current offstreet parking and loading requirements, and do the calculations, you ¡fmd the majority of the parcel is devoted to offstreet parking and loading, making it very costly and inefficient. iThat was the point made 2 weeks ago; mixed occupancy isn't simply related to the mixeduse zones. This is a mixed occupancy building regardless of its zoning. Q Mr. Berg: And the exemption of the upper floors applies in which zones? Mixed use and general commercial? A Mr. Toews: C-II, C-IIH, C-I mixed use, C-II mixed use, and C-I, which is neighborhood commercial. Q Mr. Emery: Thought that last week you used Silver Palace as another example of main floor and second floor exemption. A Mr. Toews: That would be an example. Mr. Jeff Randall arrived for the remainder of the meeting. Q Ms. Hersey: What about underground parking? How does that relate to this whole parking space requirement? If you are putting parking ùnderground, do you still count that? A Mr. Toews: Yes, that would be off-street. Q Ms. Hersey: Even if it is underground and you are using less impervious? A Mr. Toews: In terms of providing more space, exceeding the upper threshold-- he thought that could be a theoretical possibility, but very dim, sÏn1>ly because of the cost of structured parking. It is currently prohibitively expensive. The average cost per space as of 1999 for structured off-street parking in the state was about $1,250 per space, probably more than that now. Q Mr. Emery said he thought Jeff Randàll mentioned a figure for the space. A Mr. Randall: $3,600 in-lieu space; structured space is between $10,000 - $30,000. Q Ms. Hersey questioned not just in the downtown, but in the places where there are requirements? Are you looking if they put underground, do they still have to provide outside area and not count the parking that is underground? A Mr. Toews: The only thing that matters is whether or not they comply with the number of parking spaces required, whether it's structured parking, or an offstreet parking lot adjacent or behind the building. Mr. Randall: The parking space and building would count as an offstreet parking space. Q Ms. Hersey: Even though it takes away from impervious surface because you are going cœer the surface anyway? Why wouldn't it be a credit? A Mr. Randall: An incentive with parking underneath your building? Ms. Hersey concurred. (Mr. Randels suggested also building-top parking.) Mr. Randall asked for her thought: instead of counting avehicle space underneath the building as 1 space, maybe count it as 2 spaces on-street parking; give it more incentive for people to do that. Q Ms. Hersey: If you are going to have the surface, why not add parking to it? It is more efficient land usç even if it is going to cost. If they are òn a tight piece of property, that might be what they have to do; you don't want it to be a negative type thing. A Mr. Toews: One potential incentive to do that would be variances from the floor area ratios that apply within a given zone or structure. If you are limited to a certain percent building coverage in the GII zone, the understanding being that you are going to need a portion of that no-structure portion of the lot for offstreet parking, you might obtain a variance and build a structure that exceeded floor area ratio on some portion of the land you would assume would be devoted to off-street parking. The bottom line is there is nothing in this draft that specifically addresses that issue. Mr. Randall: It doesn't prohibit putting parking underground. It would count the same; there is no incentive. Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 8 · · · 17.72.080 Table Mr. Toews stated that other than the exemption section, the real heart of the proposed changes liesin the Standards Table. He gave an overview of what they were trying to do on a ministerial level and also the substantive level. The current use table uses classifications that are not necessarily defmed in current Chapter 17.08 defmitions, nor terms necessarily used in the use tables throughout the rest of Title 17. The following ideas are to make this something that could be administered and implemented using terminology that is throughout the rest of Title 17: · Food Service Uses. Commercial. A heading used in tables throughout Title 17; classify the same way. · Include more uses; length of the table expanded. · Retail Uses. Commercial (broadest heading). Includes one fairly basic standard but also calls out separate uses. To preclude a host of unclassified uses, they elicited examples from other jurisdictions for uses included in their tables. · Linked to number of employees rather than gross floor area in many instances (a significant deviation); e.g., · Manufacturiol! Uses -- gross square footage not a real good connection as the basis for a parking requirement (a huge warehouse facility with three employees). Q Mr. Kelety: Were the values on which you base footage and employees in other tables? A Mr. Toews: They looked at a number ofpark~ codes from other jurisdictions, also a study done by the Department of Transportation (DOT), 1999-2000, that surveyed jurisdictions statewide of small, medium and large cities that listed their average parking ratios for basic categories of use; e.g., Canmercial Retail, Business Park, Manufacturing. They looked at codes from a number of other jurisdictions that had more recently updated their parking standards; looked at the policy direction in the Comp Plan, at reducing impervious surfaces; and also trèd to do what they thought made sense in a given use context. Q Mr. Kelety: Was there is some empirical data in the parking studies where people actually counted cars, etc? A Mr. Toews: Yes. The studies show, more often than not, that most jurisdictions still have parking ratios that derive from the 1960's ITE recommendations, and require offstreet parking. There are some smart growth . codes that have been developed more recently that really slash the standards, set minimums that are much lowe and maximums that are more in line with what used to be required under the old ITEderived standards. Q Mr. Kelety: Said he was not asking these questions because he was challenging this, but this is a big part in their presentation, basically in a sound bite as to where these were derived. A Mr. Toews: Candidly, the minimums are a composite. Some of them square with what other jurisdictions are doing, some you determine by looking at given uses in Port Townsend today and what those standards wold mean on the ground in terms of offstreet parking. They then came up with a standard they thought made more sense. This is not based on empirical data, any practical study that shows such things like survey of a parking lot, or usage at a given time. Q Mr. Kelety: Is there anything that says where these were derived, that summarizes what you said? A Mr. Toews: Said he could do that; it is not in the memo. Q Mr. Kelety: It might be very helpful if you could say that very succinctly on a couple ofthose. A Mr. Toews: Concurred. Required Bicvcle SDaces (4th column). Major change in addition to much lower minimums and new maximums that in many instances square with the old minimums. Q Mr. Berg: With respect to adaptive reuse, etc. and bike parking downtown specifically, we have a whole downtown full of zero lot line buildings with front doors right on the sidewalk. If we are going to require bike parking every time somebody changes the store or whatever, where are they supposedto put it? It seems that bicycle parking in downtown Port Townsend really needs to be dealt with on a citywide basis, and not with every individual property owner. Mr. Randels agreed. A Mr. Randall: Sometimes it is appropriate; on certain blocks where they have a sidewalk that is wide enough and they don't have adequate bicycle facilities. Maybe it would be appropriate to say to the developer he is intensifying the use is this building md we would like you to put in a bike rack out front; put it in the spot where the City approves. Another situation, it may not be appropriate. There may not be room, etc.; it would be caseby-case. Mr. Toews: Referenced Section 17.72.200.A.2.b., "For uses exemDt from the offstreet vehicular Darkine: reauirements of this title. bicvcle facilities should be Dlaced as near to the Dublic entrance as Dossible without obstructing Dedestrian movement:' In some instances they may be some considerable dÜtance away from the nearest public entrance. Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 9 · · · Q Mr. Randels: But in some instances it is literally impossible. You could have a building that covers 100% of the lot. There is no place you can put it Mr. Berg: There is no place, you have 100% full block, like the Baker block. Ms. Thayer: Maybe we need "c." under "2. Location." Mr. Randels: Presumably they can get a variance, where in those circumstances they could come in and say they cannot do it. Ms. Thayer disagreed saying she did not think you w>uld want to go through all the process of a variance. There ought to be wording saying "in the event that". Mr. Toews can provide that for our next meeting A Mr Randels agreed. Q Mr. Emery: Is there delineation between bicycle and personal trarsportation device? A Mr. Toews: No. Q Mr. Emery: Those are also a trend, not really a fad. We are going to be seeing more in the future as time goes on -- anything from a Segway to a motorized skateboard. Does there need to be a provision that says "pers>nal transportation devices"? When most people think of alternative modes of transportation, they are thinking pedal, pedal, pedal. It seems as this technology improves, a lot of this is going to be motorized, not a pedaling machine. A Mr. Toews: Are you suggesting actually mandating parking facilities for such things? Q Mr. Emery: No, as far as the language, would it be appropriate to count a bicycle space also as a personal transportation device space; not as far as mandating, but say if someone hadone of those machines, would they even be allowed to park there? A Mr. Toews: Not the way it is currently drafted. Mr. Randall: We are not out there policing them. Q Mr. Kelety: Could you add language-- "bicycle, . . . (something else)" if they fuætion the same? A Mr. Randall: It is kind of a generic term, Bike Racks. Mr. Toews: It would be a totally different standard for the facility. Mr. Randall: Right now people do take their own motorized scooter and lock it up. They could do that in practice ifthey can physically make it work. Q Mr. Emery: The design specifications all say bicycle. A Mr. Toews: Is not aware there are any standards for parking such devices, vehicles. A lot of urban jurisdictions have different classes of bike facilities, e.g., Class 1 bike facility in Seattle is a big storage room where you can put your bike and lock it up, controlled access and safe. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Could you add the word "frame," to "support the bicycle frame"? A Mr. Randall: We are not trying to do those any more; we really don't want to support the wheels. You might want to run that past Public Works. Q Mr. Emery: That may add to the versatility of all alternative modes of transportation. A Mr. Randall: Concurred. Mr. Toews said it would be helpful if the Commissioners review the table and let him know if there are questions or concerns. They did the best they could, but there is no way they could have considered every conceivable area. Q Mr. Emery asked regarding home-based businesses (if you are going to allow no exemptions on the upper floors). If you are talking parking, if you have so many vehicle trips per day, he assumed somewhere it addresses this, although he did not see it in the chart. A Mr. Toews: The table cross-references the chapter on home occupations. Mr. Randall: Basically, in the permit process, home occupations have an evaluation and you need to show adequate parking, usually considered to be what is adequate for your residence. 17. n.OgS Maximum permitted parldng Unnecessary due to maximum standards in the table. 17.72.110 Location. Some of the clarifying language is intended to square with what is used throughout the rest of Title 17; elimination of9. is intended to be consistent with the proposed exemption (.040). 17.72.120 On-Street parking spaces. Strikeouts relate to the exemption in .040. The language retained pertains to outside the National Register Historic District -- a recent code amendment to create two spice exemptions for on-street parking spaces that are Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 10 · · · provided adjacent to a site. Mr. Randall explained that was part of the commercial design review standards. Q Mr. Randels: The word "provided" -- does that mean provided by the project itself or that it exists? A Mr. Randall: When they drafted that, if it was sitting there already. Mr. Toews: That would suggest improvement of a right-of-way? Mr. Randall: Concurred, and improvement of parking as part of your project. Q Mr. Berg: Improvement of on-street parking; like you make a curb, stripe the spaces, etc. A Mr. Randall: Or you provide a curb; there may have been no curb. Q Mr. Randels: What ifthere was a curb and there were two spaces right in front of the site you are talking about? The effect is no different. A Mr. Randall: That is a good question. Mr. Toews: It was not for existing; it was for new on-street parking provided. Q Mr. Randels: If that was the intent that should be more clearly stated. It seems it could be read both ways. A Mr. Randall: Concurred. 17.72.130 Residential transient accommodations - Parking requirements. Refers the reader to the table; because the parking is specified in the table it is not necessary to repeat in the narrative. 17.71.1S0 aDd 17.71.1(jg Fee in-lieu provisions that currently only operate within the GIll zoning district and other commeæial zones lying within the National Register Historic District. Because of the outright exemption in .040, .150 and .160 are proposed for elimination. 17.72.180 Parking facilities - Minimum dimensions. Mr. Toews had a hard time fmding any good moiels. Apparently the trend is toward larger, not smaller vehicles. A lot of jurisdictions are retaining their old standards, or adopting new, bigger standards. After reviewing some, they opted to retain what they had. Key to the Table Graphics in Title 17 to be added -- helps the reader understand how to apply. 17.72.190 Parking facilities - Landscaping. Minor changes -- grammar and squaring to the language throughout the rest of Title 17 (Le.,t\vø family dwelling language throughout proposoo for strikeout), D. Minimum Standards. Exception for exemption relates to the entire National Register Historic District. Modified to square with language proposed in revised .040. 17.72.200 Bicycle parking facilities - Design standards. Mr. Toews is going to send to the Port Townsend bike association for feedback. A lot of them have come from and worked with urban jurisdictions developing their bike design standards. (Also NonMotorized and Parking Committees.) Q Ms. Thayer: After all these years it is really nice to see a document that is becoming business friendly in development. A Mr. Randall: You look at the current parking codes as not particularly friendly? Q Ms. Thayer: At this as being more so; she thinks that is good. A Mr. Randall: This leaves it more up to the market? Ms. Thayer concurred. 17.72.210 Off-street loading and queuing spaces - Number required. Uses stricken that are not terms defmed in 17.08. Section 17.86.040 (highlighted) Proposing to amend the variance chapter, another section of Title 17 outside of the parking ordinance. 17.86.040 Permit review process. B. Applications for minor variances. . . Seeks to make clear that applications for minor variances (as defmedin 17.08) and parking variances (Chapter 17.72) would be administrative Type II permits. Plarming Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 11 · Q Ms. Thayer: what are they now? A Mr. Toews: Parking variances are now Type III permits. The defmition of minor versus major in Chapter 17.08 doesn't relate to the parking situation at all. Q Mr. Randels: Under this revision, Safeway would be asking for a minor variance? A Mr. Toews: It would be a minor variance; it would be administrative in nature. There would be public notice and an opportunity to appeal to the Hearings Examiner, but no mandatory hearing. Section 17.86.065 (highlighted) New section. Currently, 17.86.060 provides alternative criteria variances relating to development in historic structures and is a precedent for including this language as a model for providing alternative criteria for off street parking and loading variances. · 17.86.065 Alternative approval criteria - Off-street parking and loading variances. The criteria in this section could be expanded. Mr. Toews wanted to know fllSt if the Commission was comfortable with the idea of providing a variance both from minimum andmaximum standards provided in the table. He explained they could do that, if they concur and want to see greater clarification and clearer "bookends" put on the situations where variances can be provided. As proposed, requests for decreases in off-street parking would have to demonstrate that joint-use parking opportunities have been explored, that a parking study had provided a basis for the reduced parkingand mitigation necessary too offset negative effects, and the site is served or going to be served by Transit within a reasonable period of time. For increasing off street parking over the maximums, the Safeway situation would be the same, plus the decision maker would have to make a fmding that the parking demand study had been submitted that supported the need for increased parking. Q Ms. Hersey: Where does the Park and Ride fit into this? Is there a line item? A Mr. Toews: It is not exclusively mentioned in the parking code. One of the fundamental purposes of the Park and Ride, and one of the amendments here to the code, is to promote mode shift. In driving past there on a recurrent basis over the last month or so at different times, œ has found it is incredibly under-utilized. It obviously plays into the overall strategy and could provide really effectively, being a huge source of unused offstreet parking and dove-tailing back to Transit. Q Ms. Hersey: If somebody had a piece of property and would like to build another park and ride, is it a possibility? A Mr. Toews: That would be an essential public facility in the zone use table. Q Ms. Hersey: Can they be privatized? A Mr. Randall: Ifwe had paid parking downtown. As long a; parking is free, no. Q Ms. Hersey: Wooden Boat -- they are making $20/car parking at the stadium. A Ms. Thayer: They were using the Park and Ride then. Q Ms. Hersey: Is there anything in any of the tables (good, bad or indifferent)? This is parking. A Mr. Toews: That wouldn't happen here. That would be in the zone use tables. You would have to look at the particular use tables for the relevant zone to determine whether or not it was an allowed use to essentially have an off-street parking facility. You would have to coordinate with Transit to link such a facility to the Transit system. Mr. Randall discussed where parking is occurring, how people park; it is not only a regulatory matter, but it is a City matter. That is largely what the City Park~ Committee is looking at -- part Transit, part what is free, etc. We are trying here to get more development, more compact, more things happening in our commercial district. It is an issue, but not so much a regulatory issue. · Q Ms. Hersey: If someone had a private piece of property really close to town in commercial, and decided they were going to have a paid parking lot business, do you have any regulations? A Mr. Randall: For commercial in the city we would have to pull out the use table. Q Ms. Hersey: Should that be part of this? Do you remember when you came off the ferry, before that building was built, people used to park there. A Ms. Thayer: That is not part of this. Mr. Randall: That is a big issue in some places, e.g., Spokane. It is not economical; he did not think they were seeing much of that. Mr. Toews: Clarified that those would be provisions found in use tables elsewhere in Title 17, not in a code Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 12 · · · that mandates offstreet parking and loading for particular uses. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Regarding residential, do we still want two spaces? A Mr. Berg thought the place to reduce it seems to make the most sense is the Historic District, or in situations where they have small houses like the cottage ordinance; it is reduced anyway. Residential parking on steep slopes: Mr. Randall stated that Staff has talked about steep slopes. Someone is proposing to build a house, and we make him or her carve into this hill to make two parking spaces on a street that is not busy. Could we inclwi a waiver procedure; if there is adequate parking, it's a local access street and not a commercial arterial you can't park on, and other factors, e.g. ESA, stormwater, impervious surfaces, etc.? Something less onerous than a variance. Mr. Berg asked if this is the kind of thing that could be left up to the market? You have either a spec house or a private owner; can't they decide whether or not they want to park on the street? Can't the developer decide if he wants to sell the house withlwithout a garage? Mr. Randels agreed. Q Mr Randall: Provided it meets standards, e.g., garage setback. A Mr. Berg: That is covered in the zoning code. Q Ms. Thayer: Are you talking about eliminating the two spaces, entirely? A Ms. Slabaugh: Concurred. Q Ms. Hersey: If you build a house on 50xlO0 and add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), you have impacted parking; there would be a need. We have really pushed hard for that for infill and density. A Mr. Randall: We do have some streets. Blaine Street is almost without offstreet parking, and you have a house almost every 50 ft. Ms. Thayer would be in favor of one parking space. Mr. Toews explained the table shows ADUs are proposed to have no off-street parking requirements (unchanged); cottage homes require one space, or 1.5 spaces/unit if on-street parking is not available. Multi-family is 1.5 spaces/unit; single family is 2. Ms. Thayer suggested going to I, and asked for a motion. Q Mr. Randels: Would that apply also to an ADU? A Ms. Thayer: You would keep ADU at zero, but require one space for a single family. Q Mr. Berg: The Historic District is still exempt? . A Ms. Thayer: Yes. Q Ms. Slabaugh: What is the rationale? A Ms. Thayer: There ought to be one offstreet parking space per single family. You have a 5500 ft lot, or whatever; there is enough room to have at least one. You don't have to have a garage. Q Mr. Berg: What if you would rather have a raspberry patch and pl1'k on the street? A Ms. Thayer: Would rather see the car off the street. Mr. Randall summarized and called for a non-binding straw vote. Currently every single family residence is required to have two offstreet spaces and we are talking about reducing that to one required space, or none, and leaving it up to the home builder. In the Historic District it would still be zero as proposed. Q Mr. Kelety: In own no cars, have moved to Port Townsend so I can do all my walking downtown, you are telling me I still have to? j\ Ms. Thayer: )'es Ms. Hersey asked if they don't require parking offstreet, are we saying they are going to park on the street? Mr. Randels responded houses get built without a garage or driveway. We are talking abouta hypothetical thing that is not going to happen more than 2,.3 things total. Ms. Thayer said, as a former realtor, you would be surprised the number of people who don't realize someday they have to sell their house. Mr. Berg said even if you have 50 feet of street frontage with no curb cut, that is three cars you can park in front of your own house without anyone else's street frontage. STRAW VOTE Off-street parking requirement (Non-binding) I per unit required 2 in favor o per unit required 4 in favor Leave as is 1 in favor Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 13 · · · Mr. Toews said he had looked through a lot of codes to see if there were any withno requirement. He pointed out that Port Townsend survived without an offstreet parking requirement forsingle-family dwelling; throughout its history, except the last 14 years. He asked if the requirement were to be reduced or more radically eliminated, what would you do with multi-family; what would you tell prospective developers ofmulìtfamily units? Obviously, that is a situation where you typically don't have structured parking under the unit, particularly if it is more affordable housing. He did not fmd a code that at least had one space per dwelling unit in multi-family. He asked them to think about the rationale and what you say to the people. Mr. Toews asked that they recap what it is they need from him to make more informed policy. · Information on Kittleson and Associates recommendation; · Recommendations/feedback from the Parking Advisory Committee; NonMotorized Transportation; P.T. Bike Association; · Rationale for standards -- single family; · Expand on bicycle parking if not enough room in front. ¢vir. Randels suggested a fee in-lieu if you can't do it.) Mr. Randall apologized for being late, but he had come from a meeting of the Kitsap selfhelp housing group of people building their own homes, off Howard Street at Hamilton Heights. He reported on challenges they had with changes of supervisors and with their own requirements, and that he had offered them encouragement. VII. UPCOMING MEETINGS December 2, 2004 Public Open House and Work-Study Session, ESAs/BAS VIII. COMMUNICA nONS -- There were none IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Kelety and seconded by Ms. Hersey. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 12 p.m. ~~~ Richard Berg, Chair ~ Sheila A vis, Minute Tater Planning Commission Minutes, October 28, 2004 / Page 14