Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011305 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Alice King called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Cindy Thayer, George Randels, Liesl Slabaugh, and Steve Emery; Jeff Kelety was excused. It was reported that Lyn Hersey, whose term expired, will be returning January 27 and joined by two other members appointed to fill the remaining vacancies. Also present were Consultant Eric Toews, Long Range Planning Director Jeff Randall, and Dave Peta-son from Public Works. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair for 2005 -- Mr. George Randels Ms. Thayer nominated Mr. Randels for Chair; Ms. Slabaugh seconded. Ms. Thayer asked to approve Mr. Randals and that nominations be closed. Mr. Randels was unarimously elected Chair. Vice Chair for 2005 -- Ms. Alice King Ms. Slabaugh nominated Ms. King for Vice Chair; Mr. Randels seconded; Ms. King accepted the nomination. Ms. Thayer made a motion to unanimously approve the nomination, and Ms. King was unanimosly elected Vice Chair. IV. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously accepted as amended: I) election of officers; 2) presentation of a letter to the Planning Commission from the City Council asking for a list of anticipated projects. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October ~ 2004: Ms. Thayer made a motion to approve the minutes as written; Ms. King seconded. All were in favor. Vice Chair King turned the remainder of the meeting over to newly elected Chairman Randels. Minutes of December Qb 2004: Ms. Thayer asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that due to lack ofa quorum, the meeting was not official and discussion was informal. All were in favor. Minutes of December Q2, 2004: Ms. Thayer made a motion to approve the minutes as written; Ms. Slabaugh seconded. All were in favor. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Jeff Randall asked to include at the end of the meeting a ~ff presentation ofthe manufactured home code amendment mandated by a new State law and referred by City Council to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thayer reminded that former Planning Commissioner's memorial service will be held January 29th. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page I . VII. NEW BUSINESS J. Discussion of changes to Draft Parking Code Amendments -- Chapter 17.72 PTMC Mr. Toews stated the presentation was intended to give a more thorough understanding of the changes proposed to the Draft Parking Code Amendments prior to the Planning Commission public hearing to be held January 27th. The intention was also to learn from the Downtown Parking Advisory Board about some of the other parking management strategies being pursued by the city; to hear some of the views and concerns e'l'ressed by the Advisory Board on the proposed changes, and to direct what changes the Commissioners feel are necessary to the draft in advance of the hearing. He used overheads to recap draft changes and the basis for them: . Policv Direction in the 1996 Comp Plan regarding parking management . Ensure that revised standards do not deter new development or redevelopment; . Encourage bike parking facilities; . Develop and reduce parking requirements to encourage new development, limit new impervious surfaces, and meet parking needs; . Where appropriate, reduce parking requirements for new development; . Reduce requirements to encourage development, redevelopmelt and adaptive reuse within the city's Historic District (principally, C-Ill zoning district: Downtown; Uptown -- Taylor and Lawrence Street intersection); . Ensure code changes distinguish between those areas of town that are intended to be more aut.. oriented (e.g., Sims Way -- SR20 corridor), and areas more suitable for alternative modes !principally, C-111 zoning district and the MU zoning districts that were created by the Comp Plan in 1996); . Ensure property owners are responsible for managing on-site parking demand; . Develop parking lot design standards that are pedestrian friendly; . Ensure that off-street continues to be the primary source of parking supply for mixed,use centers and comme.rcial corridors. Key changes partially discussed this week in the Leader. Kev Changes I) Exempt all adaptive reuse, redevelopment and new development from parking standards within the limits of the city's National Register Historic District -- Generated the most discussion with the Commission and the Parking Advisory Board. (Includes all zones lying within the National Register Historic District including commercial and residential and goes one step further than amendments adopted by the city in 1997 which exempted adaptive reuse and renovation, and changeof use, within historic structures in the C-Ill zoning district.); 2) Establish new lower minimum offstreet requirements; 3) Establish new maximum offstreet requirements; 4) Establish bicycle parking requirements for new development (including the NatiOlal Register Historic District); 5) Provide an administrative variance process to increase or decrease parking standards on a case-by-case basis. . Historic District Exemotions Supoorting Rationale: (issues of concern with the Parking Advisory Bom as well as the Planning Commission): . To further the city's historic preservation goals; . To help provide a healthy, vibrant, attractive downtown; . To promote more efficient land use and infill development on the remaining vacant lots within the Historic District; . To promote alternative modes of travel, namely Transit shuttle, walking; and bicycling; . To attempt to make the code more equitable by treating the owners of vacant lots and non-historic structures the same as owners of historic buMings. . To recognize that part of the appeal of the Historic District lies in its landscape which is not dominated by modern parking facilities. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13, 2005 / Page 2 . . Mr. Toews introduced Staff Member Dave Peterson, who has been working with the Parking Advisory Board. He asked Mr. Peterson to give background information on the City's overall parking management strategies and where these proposed changes fit into the broader context of measures the City is currently pursuing. Mr. Peterson noted that one of the concerns brought up previously by Staff and the Parking Advisory Committee was, that along with changing the parking requirements, there was a parallel process to address the parking issues downtown. He indicated he would address what had been going on in the past2 years related to downtown parking. He then discussed severa] charts. The City hired consultants Kitte]son & Associates to help prepare a downtown parking plan. They spent two weekends Summer 2003 counting cars and assessing what it is like in summelJleak periods. Findings showed: . Saturdav. mid-dav -- parking spots utilized 85% or above (shown in red); not many available. Utilization of 85% or above is high and is a good thing. He referred to the public market and said the peak was between] ]:00 am. and 3:00 p,m. . Downtown parking spaces numbered approximately] 150-- approximately 450 were private. (Mr. Peterson answered Chair Randels: orange is 50 - 85% full; green, less than 50%.) . Friday -- pretty typical, but not as much concentrated on Monroe Street. They concluded parking is highly utilized and full; 1200 spaces. They did a survey of people who parked in town and found: . Visitors -- 61% found it easy to park downtown; 30% only scmewhat difficult. (90% had an okay experience with parking in Port Townsend.) . Residents-- 41 % found it somewhat easy; 25% somewhat difficult; 30% difficult to park downtown. (Chair Randels thought it "different expectations.") . How does Port Townsend compare with other ]ocales? . Visitors -- About the same as any place else. . Residents -- A lot worse. Why was it hard to find a spot? -- there are not enough, close enough to park. Residents have a higher expectation for what parking they wmt to have to come downtown and shop. Results from questions in a recent County-wide shopping survey in theLeader were fairly similar, although a higher percentage of residents were okay with parking-- not a deterrent to coming downtown; 70% elIDe downtown at least once/week. Mr. Randels: The Kittelson was presumably a scientific survey, whereas that oftheLeader was not? Ms. Thayer noted, the Leader survey was not necessarily in the summer; the Kittelson was. Mr, Peterson said both surveys were evaluated scientifically. Collection of data was from handouts to people walking down the street, not phone call representatives -- self selection. Survey of length of time in the parking space: . Checked license plates every hour -- found "musica] cars." . I, 2, 3, 4-hours -- 10% of cars parked 3-4 hours in 2-hour time zones, which actually takes 25%. A few cars violating the time zone take spaces from other people who could use those spots. They found 25% of the space usage was of people violating the time zones. Mr. Peterson stated the parking consultants who do a lot of work in towns like this said what is really important for the economic vitality of a town like this is have high turnover in your valuable spots, e.g., 2hour parking. You want people to come in, do their shopping or business, and turn over the parking spaces. Employees who come and park in those spaces, move their cars, or park too long, are taking up valuable spaces-- not to put any less value on employees, but there is more value ill the parking spaces in this district for those who are turning them over to commercial activity. Scott Walker, member of the Parking Advisory Board, circulated a graph of the number of vehicles observed to be 3-4 hours in these zones, taking up 10% ofthe spaces and accounting for 27% of the time use. . Mr. Peterson reported there was a parking task force formed to work with the consultants to prepare for this plan. One consultant recommendation was to form a standing parking advisory board, which h. been formed, and with whom the City has been working. A lot of the people on the Board originally worked with the plan and have Planning Commission Minutes, January 13, 2005 / Page 3 . been involved over the past 2 years. Ms. Thayer asked if the majority of people on the Board were downtown business owners, property owners? Mr. Peterson replied they tried to have a mix; there are all kinds of interests and stakeholders -- residents, business owners, building owners, people who come downtown to shop, people who come down to walk around, trucks who have to unbad goods downtown. Part of the Board's work is getting to know all of the interests, so they are all considered. . The Consultants found: . There is going to be more and more pressure for parking downtown all the time, with the Maritime Center, City Hall Annex, Cannery Building, and all the redevelopment going on. Within 5 years, the City might need 200 more parking places downtown, 200 more places to park. You can create those in a lot of different ways -- that doesn't mean you need to build a parking garage. You can get more turnover down here. . There is more and more demand on the parking places downtown. That's going to continue; and that's a good thing. . They found Port Townsend to be one of the most pedestrian-friendly towns they have visited There is something good happening here, and you don't want to ruin that in what youdo to manage parking. . There is a high bicycle use downtown. . The Park & Ride is under-utilized, and they suggested coming up ways to utilize that more. . The parking system is pretty near its capacity. . A lot of "musical cars," . Enforcement has not been consistent. (Has been worked on and is changing-- enforcement is now pretty consistent.) . Employees and residents feel frustration if they can 1 fmd a spot, or maybe enforcement was inconsistent. . There are not a lot of opportunities for new surface parking lots downtown. (Ms. Thayer asked if there was discussion regarding Memorial Field? Mr. Peterson spoke of basic spectrums-- ways you can go, You can go more parking if you have surface area. You can build parking garages-- they are expensive. You have to have a way to pay them back; they don't finance themselves without paying to park, If you don't have on-street paid parking, how are you going to get people in the parking garage to pay off the garage? -- whether Memorial Field or something else, that is always a point of discussion, how do you pay for it? Where you locate it is another issue.) . If the status quo is working, let it sc/ve itself and do some things to improve it. . Aggressive alternative mode, e,g., close off downtown and don't let cars there. What the City put together is rather a meshing of all the options and picking from all of them. Mr. Peterson distributed and discussed the Kittelson & Associates Parking Management Plan dated January 2004. He stated they had worked with the Advisory Committee over the past year to fine tune and polish recommendations from the Comp Plan. Recommendations excerpted from Downtown Port Townsend Parking Management Plan. . PHASE I. Near-Term Actions (Within one year) Administrative Steps: 1.1 -- Appoint a Parking Manager. (They do not actually have a City Parking Manager; Public Works is staffing the Committee.) 1.2 -- Establish a Parking Advisory Committee (called the Parking Advisory Board and is now working.) Parking Management and Access Steps: 1.3 -- Reevaluate some short-term and long-term parking. Last September they went to City Council for some parking time-zone changes, i.e., change some of the 24-hour parking that exists in some prime parking spots. As suggested, they made some 4-hour parking for visitors wanting to shop and also have lunch. The basic concept is that 2-hour parking is in the prime zone, 4-hour is in a rather flex zone, and 24-hour in the periphery- - 24-hours, basically employee parking on the outskirts of town; higher turnover in the middle; some 4hour at the edges. Although they are fine tuning some of the philosophies they are using, it is prilty much that kind of idea. Volunteer parking enforcers are pretty much enforcing this more consistently, keeping that ]hour zone moving and turned over. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page4 . . . 1.4 -- Adult Education Programs. Trying to educate the businesses that you doni want your employees taking the prime spots in town is working fairly well. Selfowned businesses are fairly active in working with their employees to find alternate places to park. 1.5 --Increase the number of bicycle parking spaces. They worked withthe HPC over the last year or two to get an approved type of bike parking rack and some locations that will work for them downtown. Mr. Randels asked if that had been achieved, Mr. Peterson replied affirmatively, that they have put up five or six and wil be putting them up a few at a time. They seem to be used when people figure out how to use them. Long Term Goals: 1.6 -- Develop a pedestrian improvement plan for downtown. For the Maritime Center, they requested a congressional $1.5 million allocation for streetscape improvements downtown, They did not get that this year as they thought, but are continuing to address downtown pedestrian improvements. In addition, they are working with the DASH Board, and ADA about accessibility downtown, e.g., sidevtllks and curb cuts. One thing said was if people have to park a ways away, at least make the experience of walking something you enjoy doing, e.g., benches and proper light. That is a long-term goal to accomplish. 1.7 -- Parking for construction vehicles and ADA spaces -- an ongoing task they are working with. Parking fumJ2!y Steos: /.8 -- Increase the supply. See if they can fit in any more angled spaces. Something that seems to be working right now -- trucks have to unload; bikes have to go downtown;people have to park. It is rather scary sometimes, but everything gets accommodated. This committee wants to look a little more to see if there is a way to maximize any more on-street parking with what they have and still be able to accomplish what the downtown seems to work with. When you are a driver downtown, you know you are downtown and you know you are watching for pedestrians; it's really a good place to be and walk. We want to keep it that way, but also see if there are ways to fmd a few morespaces within what they already have. /.9 -- Work a little more with private lots to maximize the use of private lots, 1.10 -- Parking bank. There is a little of that going on, some shared spaces available on those private lots. Mr. Randels asked if there were any that were particularly difficult about not cooperating? Mr. Peterson did not think so, but over the last year they are filling up and it is not as easy to fmd those spaces as it was. Mr. Randels asked about empty spaces in off hours and iftlBt is the market. Mr. Peterson thought that it was the market. PHASE 2 Intermediate Actions (2 to 5 Years) 2.1 -- Increase enforcement. Enforcement is volunteer and sporadic-- the word is out when they are coming down the street. They don't have ful~time parking enforcement. 2.2 -- Implement paid parking. Discussion would be ongoing. Mr. Emery asked if paid parking would be parking meters? Mr. Peterson spoke of available options. Answers to one question on the survey in theLeader about paid parking, showed 35 - 50% said they would not come downtown if they had to pay. They don't want to discourage local shoppers from coming downtown. -- Work toward establishing a downtown parking improvement district; some way where parking revenues might be going to make parking improvements, maybe through assessments of property owners. Alternative Access Steos: 2.6,2.7 -- Jefferson Transit is on the Committee. They are trying to work on alternative ways to get downtown and not bring the car. The more they go on, they more uses there are, the more emphasis there will be on fmding other ways to get downtown. PHASE 3. Long-Term Actions (Five+ Years) 3.2 -- Pretty much, the Parking Advisory Committee doesn't want to see a lot of parking lots downbwn any more than anybody else; the lively thing of being downtown is having buildings and people around. On the other hand we do have parking problems we will have to address. The more we lose some of the surface lots and places to park, the more we are going to have to rely on these other options we are looking at to handle the parking. Mr. Peterson reiterated in summary that there is a parallel track going on here, looking at options for handling the many different users that come downtown that mape don't need to park, that maybe need to fmd other ways. They need to address those demands. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 5 . . . Mr. Toews thanked Mr. Peterson and elaborated on other initiatives the City is pursuing: Parking and Business Improvements District that would essentially function like a Local Improvement District (LID), and would generate revenues from those within the limits of the district to actually fund a broad array of streetscape and parking improvements over the long term. Mr. Toews said to his knowledge that is something that hasn't been adopted anywhere as city policy, and is based on comments they received during the morning's Advisory Board meeting. It was suggested for more likely in the future than by undertaking some amendments to the exemption langllge for the National Historic Register District -- mainly language that would make the exemption contingent on signing a no protest agreement to participate in such an improvement district in the future, were it to be formed. That is language they could incorporate into the draft with Planning Commission recommendation, Chair Randels asked if that would be something of an enforcement mechanism for new proposed development, or redevelopment, but wouldn't have impact on anything existing? Mr. Toews repliedit would function the same way on change of use, adaptive reuse and redevelopment of existing structures. Mr. Peterson explained that if you formed a district, everybody that is in the district could participate. Those that build can't protest the formation of that district, and he answered Mr. Randels that once you form it, everyone has to be in it. Mr. Randall explained it is usually a two-step process: I) agreeing to the formation is one vote; 2) once formed, everyone still has the right to comment on the amount of the participation. He concurred, if they lose, they have to participate. Mr. Peterson commented that you don't have to form it if you don't want to. Mr. Randall noted that no one process has been zeroed in on; it is more of the idea that it would be an equitable acrOss the board process. Mr. Toews pointed out that is at least one means of removing potential opposition to such an approach, should it be pursued more vigorously by the City in the future. Ms. Thayer reported she would not be at the public hearing and recommended that if they include language about the no protest agreement, they make sure all the businesses downtown are notified that this might happen. She was concerned that they understand what it is and don't get conUsed and say the City is making them form something of an LID. Advisory Board Member Scott Walker said they are a long way from that. Ms. Thayer was concerned that property owners downtown understand what the language is. Mr, Toews indicated that in general terms, feedback from the Advisory Board was favorable. He reviewed the following comments and concerns: Comments and Concerns expressed Qy Advisory Board Members: . Concern on some level about the "big/ugly" that might be out there, the use that night be exempt under the recommended code provisions that no one can anticipate right now-- concern about an out- and-out exemption and the City basically relinquishing the authority to meaningfully condition or potentially prohibit such a use. The appropiate vehicle for addressing that concern was part of this morning's discussion -- appropriately addressed through changes in proposed parking code language; or, instead, if best addressed in the Use Tables throughout the rest of Title 17. In addition tothe basic use classifications (permitted, conditional, prohibited) for all the various zones, there are also instances found throughout the Use Tables where there are additional caveats added to certain uses. For instance, restaurants are permitted in the M-II(B) zoning district, but only up to a certain size threshold; beyond that they are prohibited. The same could also be true for other uses that might pose a particular concern. He heard different things from different Advisory Board members. Some wee very concerned about new uses for residential, residential uses within Gm. The implication was that those would create a demand for 24-hour parking spaces witbin the downtown, also transient accommodations; the significant demand those new uses coull pose within the commercial Historic core. Mr. Walker suggested; for example, someone proposes a large hotel in the Point Hudson end of town with 300 rooms. Ifthey are exempt from offstreet parking, it could take up half of the available space in the downtown core. Chair Randels thought the market could have something to say. Mr. Walker indicated that is what they came to. . Concern about the potential for demolition of structures within the downtown to provide offstreet parking for one of those large, unanticipated uses in the future. He thought the City has beefed,up significantly the demolition codes. That is much less likelihood than it was in the past. He also noted that concern really cuts both ways. He is aware of some jurisdictions thlt have cited Historic Preservation and wanting to avoid demolition of historic structures precisely as one of the reasons for creating the off-street parking exemption. The long and short-- there was general support from the Parking Advisory Board but concern about those unanticipated uses and a desire on part of some to Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 6 . . . have additional arrows to address those, and a general acknowledgment of the need to have some broader front funding mechanism, whether code amendments or a separate city policy initiatVe entirely, to help fund streetscape and parking improvements. Comments and Concerns expressed !1y City Staff: I) Language regarding no-protest formation of Parking and Business Improvement District; 2) Inclusion of detailed standards for bicycle parkilg facilities and vehicular facilities within the text of the code. Those are standards that are frequently changed, much like standards contained within the city's engineering design standards that may be amended outside the more cumbersome code amendment process. It may be more efficient to simply make reference to standards contained in the city's engineering design standards manual and incorporate these standards, parking facilities for both for bikes and vehicles, within that document. Mr. Toews stated that as far as he is aware, those were the concerns expressed so far in addition to those of the Planning Commission. Chair Randels reported one Commission member would be leaving at 8:30, and they may be losing their quorum. He called for any publi: comment to precede that time. Public Comment Ms. Jana Allen Ms. Allen pointed out that one of the charts shows a yellow stripe that runs along Point Hudson harbor, and said that is not a parking area (on the key as 50 - 85% whatever weekend they were counting cars). The only parking spaces in that stripe are directly in front of the sail loft, maybe three in front of the door. The north end of that yellow stripe is her private property, in part, an easement she has asoigned to the Port of Port Townsend. They tried to include her parking spaces in that easement, but that did not happen. Those are Pilot House parking spaces. There is a lot commentary about how long it may take the locals or tourists to have lunch orshop. She was concerned about how long it takes a ful~time employee to live and work in Port Townsend. Her niece, a chef at one of the local downtown restaurants, and has had numerous parking infractions. There are oftentimes sbe starts at 9:00 a.m. and works until I I :00 p.m. with a 2-hour break. She has to move her car numerous times. There is a comment about business owners providing alternate parking, and Ms. Allen wondered who, where and how a business owner would create more parking or more real estate for their employees. Mr. Bruce Tipton Thought he might have to go home and write a letter because there are so many things that have come up, and he just saw this morning that this meeting was happening. He said he wouldhit the high points. One of the rules for parking was made for a reason-- to stop out-of-scale projects and people who couldn't support the downtown area. We didn't want the Kur Ort real estate development to happen at the Thomas Oil site, although they wanted to build two floors of underground parking-- because that wasn't sufficient for the city; that was going to screw everything up because all these people were going to come here, He said that now we have this Maritime dream "boondoggle" that evel)body thinks they are going to hitch their wagon to and get some kind of funding benefit out of. Because we are going to spend a bunch of money at the end of the street, let's get $1.5 million for street lights; let's get some more to screw up the front ofthe waterfront; what the heck it's a big deal, let's give them a height variance; let's just suspend the rules for them. Forget the 40- 60 parking spaces they should have to have --let's let them not have any; we'll just have everybody park on the oth.. end of town. Maybe this project is out of scale; maybe we need to think about this, He thought they have kind of gone off the deep end here to say they don't need these rules. What are you going to do with all the people who have paid $3600 for each one of these parking spaces that didn't exist-- when they decide to file a class-action suit with the City for screwing with their money after all these years, not doing anything, then suspend the rules? This is wrong! He said everything you are doing here is wrong, and it upset him. Bicycle parking is as relevant as boat spaces; why don't we get all the business in town to provide a couple ofboat spaces, because we want to attract business from across the Sound. Excess parking! What is that? Are we ever going to see excess parking in downtown Port Townsend? Are we going to penalize somebody who wants to create parking because they are going to tear down a building and build a garage? He said they just built "this thing on the hill," a relic of abuilding that never was -- a steel building that looks like an historic old building, and we are all excited about it. Let's build a garage that looks like that. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 7 . '. . How is the parking going to wreck the pedestrian use? Santa Cruz built a huge parking gange; people love it. They can park; they can walk all over downtown. Their car is safe. It doesn't hurt a thing. Increase the supply? -- more land and fill up the bay. He apologized and said he would write a letter, much better phrased. He said thi; is the wrong approach to solving the problem in Port Townsend. Mr. Scott Walker Mr. Walker said he is excited. He spoke of creating a walkable town, that this is another piece of that. The presentations and questions have shown this is a compliclted issue. It would be wonderful if parking problems were solved by just creating more parking; it creates other issues with unintended consequences that will come back and scare us later. He addressed Mr. Tipton's comment saying that no has taken up tie City on the in-lieu, $3600 spaces. No one -- so there is no problem there. The proposal before them is not as radical as a lot of Historic Districts have proposed, and not as radical as some communities that were not Historic Districts have proposed. You don't solve the parking problem by creating more parking. It is solved through a number of various pieces, one of which is what is being proposed in this ordinance. He suggested leveling the playing field so that new buildings on existing propery have the same access to downtown public parking as existing buildings. Yes, it is going to increase the pressure. We have other plans in the works to help alleviate that pressure, to help shift some of that. There is no silver bullet on this one; it'sa tough one to solve. The initial parking standards (most communities have borrowed theirs from other communities) were developed by an organization under contract to the American Shopping Center Associations in the 60's to address suburban parking needs, when everybody drove. They don't work anymore; they create an asphalt jungle in a place where people don't want to live. They create a place like upper Sims Way. Who's in love with upper Sims Way? It is Port Townsend; but it's hard to be in love with it -- or Hwy 99, corridor north or south of Seattle. It is not the direction we should be going. The issue of building a parking garage-- we are going to look into that. If we build a parking garage, minimum approximately $20,000/space, borrow moneyon that over 10 years, not including any interest, recovering maintenance and operation fees you have to cover $8/day for every space every single day over 10 years to pay it back. Who is going to park there, if it is free on the street? That is another piece they have to implement; they have to work toward paid parking. If it's this valuable that people like Mr. Tipton are going to get upset about it, then it is valuable for us to start charging for it. Shared parking -- essentially it is on-street parking; other arrangements are really hard to work out. People hold back. Finding additional parking was an issue in redevelopment of the Rose Theater. Parking Improvement Districts can be also set up just to run off fee parking rather than new develoJlIlent paying into a fund. There is more to it than what was presented by Mr. Peterson. He was really excited about this, that it was a potential for something far reaching. Mr. Dave Robison, Northwest Maritime Center Mr. Robison referred to questions he received about comments in The Leader regarding the Maritime Center, which has not yet even been built, and how it could have contributed to the parking problem. He was there to answer any questions and concerns about the future of the Maritime Center. He spoke to Mr. Tipton's comments, that not one new parking space has been provided in the Historic downtown in the past 10 years due to the parking regulations; so, the parking code does not work. As Mr. Walker mentioned, not $1 has been collected since fees-in-lieu were put into the parking code in 1989. Increase the supply? Obviously, we need to look at lots of opportunities to increase the supply of parking. As Mr. Peterson said, there are a variety of mitigation tools and management tools to do that. Mr, Robison said that what we have is a good problem. Because parking is a problem in the downtown, it demonstrates that we have a healthy and vital historic downtown. It is really a problem of perception, and he thought Mr, Peterson indicated that. It is a problem of perception for locals. For visitors, it is not really a problem. He made the following four points: I) Our downtown predates the auto. The streets aren't very wide; it can only accommodate lars, let alone trucks, let alone bicycles; and a fairly good job of accommodating people because it's small blocks and pedestrian oriented. That is what makes Port Townsend special. 2) The downtown is compact. It is a I ().minute walk from one end tothe other. It i>. pedestrian oriented. Again, that is what makes Port Townsend special, why people find it attractive and why people want to live here. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13, 2005 I Page 8 . . . 3) The Historic downtown is visually appealing. We don't have the sea of concrete and parking lots i1 front of historic buildings, and it makes it pedestrian friendly. It preserves and enhances the historic character. 4) Because of all of those other factors, downtown is a public gathering spot. We go down there-- we like to walk; we like to talk; it's on the waterfront. Parking along the waterfront is probably one of the most inefficient uses of land in urban waterfront area. Nonetheless, parking is a really complicated issue. If it were easy, we would have solved it 10 years ago. It's going to take some leadership, and some really difficult decisions. The ordinance in front of you is a tiny piece of the bigger puzzle. It's going to include parking, and business improvement areas. It's going to take cooperation for downtown business owners, property owners, Jefferson Transit, the City, the Port, the Maritime Center. It is not one easy solution; it's a big puzzle and all of these pieces are going to need to fit together. He said that from his perspective, he hopes this does not become a politi:al issue that further divides our already divided community, and it's possible that it could. He does not think it should be characterized as cars versus bikes; residents versus visitors; growth versus no-growth; regulations versus ncrregulations; the Maritime Center versus the downtown property owners or The Leader. It needs to be approached from a holistic, comprehensive approach. We need to look at the economics, the community perspective, the business perspective, safety perspective, character, historical, as well as regulatory. Mr. Robison said he has lots of information and feelings about parking. Port Townsend is seen as a new model of urbanism, There are lots of articles on the benefits of free parking and the cost of free parking. He submitted an article to Staff for distribution, Congress for the New Urbanism TransDortation Technical Sheet. Mr. Peterson asked to address a couple of factual things. He explained that the consultants that prepared the chart in question didn't know private property from otherwise, so he understood the problem. Ms. Allen who added that the whole street has been vacated. He concurred and said it has become clear since the study. He said when they were counting cars they didn't actually know who owned tlings; that wasn't any intent. He also reported a big issue they are looking into downtown is employees. There is walking at night, fear things; that is a real difficult thing. There is close to 600 - 700 employees who work downtown at one time or anoth... The more this goes on, the more there are going to be to fit in there; safe walking conditions is a big issue. Ms. Allen said a young mother who gets off at 1 I :00 p.m., can't take a bus or a bike to pick up her child. Chair Randels suggested they consider the material presented. Mr. Randall asked if Planning Commissioners had any major questions prior to the public hearing that should be discussed while they still have a quorum. Q Mr. Randels. Level of detail and some of the standards-- e.g., derming a standard versus compact car space. The ratio did not reflect reality. He was inclined to think this goes into much more detail than they ought to have and that they should accept the proposal to take a lot of it out and put it over to engineeringdesign standards, and the amendatory process those standards have which is a lot less cumbersome. With compact spaces, with great frequency people don't obey them. Maybe they should just have a standard space that is just somewhat smaller than the standard one in here, but larger than the compact one. You wouldn't have to worry that they are putting a big car in a compact space. Ms. Thayer suggested sometimes you don't know whether or not your car is compact. a Mr. Randall: This is not the time to deliberate among yourselves; that is what the hearing is for. It is a time to ask clarifying questions, let them know of questions for the hearing, things they need to clarify now or go back and do additional work prior to submitting the documelt for the hearing. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Referenced Mr. Toews e-mail and asked ifhe had talked to the Port Townsend Bicycle Association. She asked if he had any input from them. a Mr. Toews: There is a draft out for comment; he had not yet received any comments. He will be in touch with the Bicycle Association and will encourage them to either submit a written or oral testimony before the Planning Commission on January 27. Q Mr. Emery: Seattle is an extreme case to follow, but they have instituted in the Capital Hill area where there is a mixed use of residences, hospitals, many businessed to serve those needs, a zone parking where you get a special sticker if you live in that 2One. Apparently, certain spaces are converted; say after 3:00 or 5:00 p.m. to one of these zone parking spaces. Has anybody looked at that as an option? a Mr. Walker: Did not think we are there yet. Mr. Toews: He did not think without specificity, although he thought there has been some discussion before the Advisory Board on parking passes for residents within the Commercial Historic District (CHD). Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 9 . . . Q Mr. Randels: What about a pass that would be applicable to employees who work late? That seemsto be a big problem; they can't use the shuttle, the park and ride, and still have safety and a reasonable degree of convenience. What about having something so that after say 6:00 p.m., employees who have to work later than that come down put a sticker on their windshield and they are okay? a Mr. Peterson: The time limits are pretty much over after 3 :00 p.m. Mr. Walker: The potential goal of the Parking Task Force is to fit a number of these pieces together simultaneously, e,g., a Parking Improvemmt District that would take some of the funds generated within it to subsidize Transit to run late at night so the Park & Ride can be fully utilized from 4:00 a.m. Mr. Randels: Obviously, we are also searching for solutions that don't have fiscal impact a; well. Q Mr. Randels: Could you explain Draft Chapter 17. 72.120~ "The required number of offstreet parking spaces provided for commercial, mixed use, and multi-family residential properties outside the C '" historie commercial E1i5lrict. . ." He did not understand the rationale for the one for one. "... For each on-street parking space provided adjacent to a site. . ." can reduce your otherwise required number of spaces by two. Why does it work that if you have one space on the street, you no lorger need two spaces off the street? If you need two spaces, you need two spaces wherever they are. a Mr. Walker: They are shared spaces on the street. If they are offstreet, they are private spaces. Mr. Randall: It's recognition that on-street spaces are more used. Q Mr. Randels: In the next section for bed and breakfasts, etc., those are less shareable and therefore a I-I ratio is appropriate? a Mr. Walker: Did not support that at all, and thought that was a problem. Mr. Toews: The amendments were really more procedural than substantive, and he was not seeking in this initial draft to change the substance of those sections. He believed the provisions regarding the 2-1 in I were just amended into the code in 2003. He was not charged with and did not make changes that did not relate specifically to the implementation of policy direction. Q Mr. Randels: Parking for multHamily housing, coming from a piece of his professional experience where he was involved in housing for senior citizens. The need for that particular use is substantially less than for other standard multi-family housing. As he reads this code, it doesn't seem to recognize that. He strongly suggested they have a separate category where properties are set aside for ages 55 and up, or whatever the appropriate standard would be. The number of cars goes down; it goes down a lot. If you do congregate housing, it goes down radically; 20% is sufficient. a Mr. Randall: The current parking ordinance has a significant break for low income and seniors. Take a look at how this compares with that current credit, which is a significant reduction. Q Mr. Walker: Mr. Randels took it one step further; he was talking about congregate facilities. Mr. Randels stated that would be another step. a Mr. Randall: They are also listed differently in the current parking code, which is a much reduced standard, because usually those people are not driving. Q Mr. Randels: Then why did you not include that? a Mr. Toews: Again, the language in the proposed Table 17.72.080 . . . use classifications found throughout the remainder of Title 17. Page 9 . . . Q Mr. Randels: Those were not what he was talking about; he was talking about an apartment house set aside for seniors. . . a Mr. Toews: You are talking about senior housing, or some low rental income assistance? Q Mr. Randels: Did not think income was important here. Low-income people drive cars; the cars just aren't as nice. It is age that matters; as we get older, we drive less. Mr. Toews: See the line -- "Multi-family dwellings" Mr. Randels: Correct. Introduce a couple of gradations. Q Ms, Slabaugh: That was something entirely different. She thought the code was meant to provi.. incentives to produce. . . a Mr. Randall: No, it was to recognize that certain mult~family projects do have fewer cars, and you do have some residents in some units that aren't driving. Q Ms. Slabaugh agreed with Mr. Randels that low income does nIT fit in that category. a Mr. Randall: That is the way the current code reads; it talks about government assisted as well as senior housing. We want to take a look at that. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 10 . . . Q Mr. Emery: As far as it stands now, the goal of many Port Townsend residents t seems, is to eventually create a town square, one being in front of the Rose Theater. Would this revision aid it; would that dream be accomplished otherwise without some sort of adjustment to the parking zoning in the Historic District? a Mr. Toews: Did not know he could say these proposed amendments would address that one way or the other. The proposal to the extent that it would eliminate the requirement to provide offstreet parking obviously places a premium on effective management of or>street parking including along Taylor Street. Mr. Walker: If we do our job well, integrate all this together, the public will become aware of how things are fitting together and that they could potentially close Taylor Street (maybe weekends), or some otherstreet. Mr. Randels said he has a couple of things he will send in an e-mail. Chair Randels spoke of upcoming meetings. It was reported there would be no meeting on January 20; the public hearing will be the next meeting. There was talk of continuing the discussion. Mr. Randels reported the City Attorney advised him the quorum is based on a full complement of positions, whether or not they are filled; therefore the Planning Commission's quorum would be five. VIII. ADDED TO AGENDA: Mr. Randall: Volunteers -- Manufactured Home Code Amendment Ms. Thayer: Memo from City Council, Planning Commission projects for 2005 Before losing the quorum, Mr. Randall asked to get a decision regarding three volunteers to serve as a subcommittee to look at the manufactured home code amendment. Ms. Thayer offered to serve, but said she would be gone the entire month of February. George Randels and Steve Emery also volunteered to serve. They determined to have a meeting in January and again in M3'ch. Mr. Randall distributed the memorandum and reported the Manufactured Home Association has been lobbying the Legislature for a long time. Last year the Legislature passed a law regarding cities and counties preventing sitings of manufactured homes. Senate Bill 6593 says that after July 1, 2005, cities and counties cannot discriminate against manufactured housing-- meaning they have to treat them the same as regular housing. There are some exceptions, one that cities and counties can requi.re that manufactured housing be new, not previously owned, and also require they be designated manufactured housing which he thought is a defmition the State just made and refers to a dimension, basically a double-wide manufactured home, minimum 24' wide by 36' bng. Council was briefed on the new law and referred this to the Planning Commission to fmd out if they should have design guidelines that should apply to stick built houses as well as manufactured homes to protect the integrity of the Historic District. The committee is to come back with a recommendation. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) 2. Discussion of Draft ESA Code Amendments -- Chapter 19.05 PTMC Review Mr. Toews distributed his draft technical memorandum of Chapter 19,05. Ms. Slabaugh left the meeting. Mr. Toews gave a brief explanation saying this is very much a working draft of the proposed amendments. They wanted the Commission to have a copy of he draft and get any of their feedback at the earliest possible date. They were to have a half-day Staff workshop the next day to review the proposed changes and to identify and begin addressing Staff concerns of the proposed language. The document is tren going for peer review. They have been working with the consultants and geo-engineers trying to beef up the analysis regarding Best Available Science and include that as an appendix to the final technical memorandum. With the technical memo and the geeengineers' report and the draft completed, they will be going out to peer review. The open record public hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2005. They hope to have peer review completed by the time of the Planning Commission workshop on February 10th, to give the opportunity to know and understand what tbose peer concerns and comments are in advance of the public hearing. Chair Randels asked if they intend to put together something that summarizes the changes that have been made between the version the Commission saw earlier, this one and the next draft? Mr. Toews replied they can do track changes of subsequent drafts of this document. This is draft #1 of the proposed lin"inlline-out 19.05. What you had before was a technical memo that essentialy described what they believed needed to be done based upon their review and rather identified the sections of the code they thought needed fixing and the rationales for doing so. Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005 ! Page II . . . This takes it to the next step where they have tried to translate that inn code language. They can try to keep track of subsequent drafts, Mr. Randels was concerned that they don't lose the number of suggestions they made at the last session. He thought they had a fair amount of consensus and substantial Staff agreement ona number of those matters. He would like to see something that says they had either r<>reviewed the things that were discussed and discovered a real serious problem with them -- here it is and why they didn't make the change; or reviewed and did make the suggested change on such and such a matter. Mr. Toews said he could prepare a summary memo that points out the issues and desired changes the Planning Commission requested. Mr. Randels thought that would be very helpful, that this is such a complicated issue. Ms. Thayer reiterated she would be out of town all of February. She noted a March 10 meeting, if another one is needed, and since she would not participate in the public hearing, she probably should not attend. Chair Randels thought that was her choice, but pointed out the possible need for a quorum. Mr. Randall discussed the memorandum from David Timmons and that although it was addressed to Ms. Thayer as chair of the Planning Commission, it goes out to all committees. It asks for current prgects they are working on and needs to be returned next week. He thought he would put together a memorandum telling the projects they are currently working on, what the budget is and timeframe. His suggested projects include: completion of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process from last year including parking code and best available science; manufactured homes; Shoreline Master Program probably June of this year; 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment process if they receive any site specific amendments-- not known until March I. He said that is all he had but asked if the Commissioners had anything they wanted to work on this year. He pointed out this doesn't mean there will not be more they will be working, but this is all they know right now. Mr. Emery asked regarding the Adult Entertainment ordinance. Mr. Randall will also include that one. Chair Randels said the Mayor had suggested to him they might want to look at a list or memo that she recalled being prepared, he thought slightly before he carre on the Commission, with regards to Comprehensive Plan implementation. Mr. Randall reported Mr. Toews had originally prepared it. Chair Randels told the Mayor he would track that down and would see if it makes sense to add it to the Commission agenda. He thought the tracking down should be on this list and see at least where that leads. Mr. Randall said he thought that was an accumulation that at the end of each chapter there is an implementation strategy. Some have been implemented, and some have not. Chair Randels suggested he and Mr. Randall get together and discuss it. IX. UPCOMING MEETINGS January 27, 2005 -- Open Record Public Hearing -- Proposed Off-Street Parking & Loading Code Amendments February 10, 2005 -- Deliberations/Report & Recommendation -- Off-Street Parking & Loading Code Amendments; Public Workshop -- ESA Code Amendments February 24, 2005 -- Open Record Public Hearing -- Proposed ESA Code Amendments March 10, 2005 -- Deliberations/Report & Recommendation -- ESA Code Amendments X. COMMUNICATIONS XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. (1Jem1f/r:n~)toJ -tiJ,j; 0 j of. jlH? Sheila A vi mute Taker I ~ Planning Commission Minutes, January 13,2005/ Page 12 . . . GUEST LIST Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Planning Commission Work Study Session. Critical Areas & Parking Code January 13. 2005 Name (please print) Address Testimony? Yes No v' ',-C \. ~. \ " Y-."\\ \,,:', " " 7 1 \'~ C" '("') \ , , ,,- ., '- ,,' " " f'---.- ., 15 ',n ~ ~, 1/ '2L.(" ~ lJo rJ 'I"-' ,"" ,'\~~) c/"c; Tleto;J 7'7 '3 ~(",,:,(.U-':,~ (J, ;y,-<.:{'A'e':"i ,)<---- ,?<" --If i: 0/J,,rJ,- '712 1--1 _S"'f tr( \ _~.,-. ,t.;- Jkrr fl! < Ii/I/ f'11j,,-^-~ (.. "^"<.... ('1/1 , ,