Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012705 Minutes . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 27, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair George Randels 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 Lyn Hersey, Alice King, Liesl Slabaugh, Steven Emery and Harriet Capron. Cindy Thayer, JeffKelety and Roger Lizut were excused. Also present were Consultant Eric Toews, and Department of Community Development Director Jeff Randall. Chair Randels reported the Manufactured Housing subcommittee appointed at the last meeting met briefly. He thought they came to some conclusions they hope will meet the Commission's approval and will bring that back at a later meeting. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Emery made a motion to accept the agenda; Ms. Hersey seconded. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- There were none V. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- There was none NEW BUSINESS -- Public Hearing Proposed Revisions to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations (Chapter 17.70 PTMC) At 7:05 p.m. Chair Randels opened the public hearing and read the rules of order. Each testimony was limited to 3 minutes until all were [mished, at which time the char could grant additional time for testimony as time permitted. He asked if any Commissioner had any interests, financial or property, to disclose in connection with this matter. There were no disclosures made. Staff Presentation Chair Randels called on Mr. Randall who welcomed new Planning Commissioner Harriet Capron. He noted Mr. Roger Lizut, a new Commissioner who is coming over from the Historic Preservation Committee, is out of town. Acknowledgment was also made of returning Commissioner i}'n Hersey. Mr. Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services, conttact planner working for the City of Port Townsend made the Presentation showing overheads that explained the following: . Objective for this public hearing: accept public testimony and have a better understanding of what some of the citizen concerns are with the proposed legislative changes being presented; begin deliberations on that testimony and discuss what is felt might be some appropriate changes to the draft document before forwarding to City Council; and at least begin to formulate a draft report and recommendations for the City Council. Based on the evening's deliberations, theyanticipate making a first attempt at a draft report, come back for review, modification and approval at the February 10 meeting, and then forward to Council. . Attempt to implement the direction of the City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan, which has gone largely unimplemented. . . . The Plan provides quite detailed policy direction both with regard to necessary amendments to the City's Off-street Parking Ordinance, but also much broader policy guidance. It suggests an array of transportation demand management strategies, and a broader parking management strategy than merely amendments to the Offstreet Parking Code, which is the purpose to this hearing. In attempting to draft regulatory changes, they have tried to reflect this policy direction, trying to enorre the standards do not deter any development or redevelopment, particularly in the Commercial Historic District (CHD); encourage bicycle parking facilities; develop and implement reduced parking requirements; encourage new development and redevelopment; limit impervious surfaces and meet parking needs; where appropriate, reduce off street parking requirements for new development; reduce requirements in particular where it relates to the CHD; attempt to distinguish between areas of the community that are nDre auto oriented (C-I1 areas along Sims Way coming into town and the mixed use centers) and the areas more suitable for alternative modes (chiefly the Downtown). They are attempting to faithfully implement the policy direction in the Plan and fmally, an regulatory level, have a parking code that is consistent with the policies of the City. Key changes include: 1) Exemption from the Off.street Parking and Loading requirements for all development-- new development, change of use, redevelopment incluling all zones both commercial and residential within the National Register Historic District, both Uptown and Downtown; 2) New lower minimum offstreet parking requirements for areas that would not be subject to the exemption (all other areas outside the National Register Historic District); 3) New maximum off.street parking requirements (trying to limit impervious surfaces lothe extent possible and ensure that surface parking lots do not predominate the landscape-- have an urban development form that makes better use of the land and doesn't have parking facilities that are designed for peak use, typically late December); 4) New bicycle parking requirements for all new development (does apply within the National Register District); 5) Administtative variance process that allows an applicant to vary from the prescriptive standards in the parking calculation table to either increase or decrease the parking provided on a cas<>-by-case basis subject to certain criteria limiting the City's administrative discretion. National Register Historic District Exemption (raising the most concern so far). Rationale includes: I) Further the City's historic preservation goals; 2) Promote a healthy, vibrant and attractive downtown; 3) Promote more efficient land use and infill development on remaining vacant lots within the National Register District and remove disincentives to development; 4) Promote alternative modes ofttavel (use of a transit shuttle; walking; bicycling); 5) Make the code more equitable in treating owners of vacant lots and non-historic structures. (The existing code has an exemption from the Off.Street Parking & Loading requirements for any change of use, redevelopment, adaptive reuse within existing historic structures-- i.e. change of use/any new use coming in and out of the Baker Block would currently be entirely exempt from OffStreet Parking requirements. Owners of non-historic structures and those of vacant lots within the Downtown area and the entire National Register Historic District are subject to Off-Street Parking Requirements.) Part of the appeal ofthe Historic District lies in the landscape not dOOlinated by modern parking facilities. What many perceive to be a parking problem is in some respects a good thing. Parking in somewhat constrained supply in the Downtown is an indication the Downtown is vibrant, active and there is a lot going on, that pople want to be here. It is both good and bad.) The Bigger Picture articulated quite effectively in the City's Downtown Parking Management Plan, identifies a number of steps: I) Near-term -- focus on transportation demand management and make more efficient use of ollStreet spaces, better use of Park & Ride facility and transit shuttle to Downtown. (Virtually all have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented by the City relating to on-street parking supply and encouraging efficient use/turnover in those existing on-street spaces); 2) Intermediat<>-term; 3) Long-term -- looking to provide more parking facilities. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27,2005 I Page 2 . . . Public Testimonv At 7: 19 p.m. Chair Randels opened the meeting to public testimony. David Goldman, 2514 Thomas Street Mr. Goldman suggested to the Commission, in particular with regard to the Off Street Parking code, that they include reference to the Gateway Plan as they change cod,,;, Reason -- the Gateway Plan is a City ordinance as of 1988, and while it uses some very general language, e.g., "facilitate the creation of a graceful community," it has the goals which could only be accomplished, as it says, incrementally over 2tf30 years, often not at the expense of the City, because the City doesn't have the money to make the changes the Plan calls for, but at the expense for instance of the State as it works on Route 20, Sims Way. He said it would also fall upon developers as they regin to redevelop properties in the Gateway Corridor. He did not find this in the zoning code in general, but suggested to the Commission that in 17.72.010 Purposes, they include reference to the Gateway Plan so as the code is applied, the intents and puposes of the Gateway Plan are brought into play where the Gateway Corridor is implicated in whatever decision is being made. He also suggested in new section 17.86.065, Alternative approval criteria, that they mention the need to meet substantially the goals set forth in the Gateway Plan if they are going to permit an alternative that is a nOllcode solution to a parking problem. Scott Walker, 712 H. Street Member of the Port Townsend Parking Task Force; a member of every Transportation Committee the City has ever had since long before the Comp Plan was put together Mr. Walker went on to say he is really excited about this change, and stated they should beaware this is potentially one of the biggest decisions they are going to have as Planning Commission members. This could have far reaching implications for how vital this town stays. Touching on Mr. Goldman's comments, regarding the extension of the alractiveness of this town to the Gateway area, he indicated they keep putting it off because they all want to make Downtown better; the Gateway certainly deserves their attention too, and it often gets left behind. He reiterated he is excited about this change and said what makes the Downtown Historic District special is its minimum parking that is available right now. In other communities, off street parking is one of the principal causes of the loss of community space. As soon as you break up that spa:e with driveways and parking lots, you become much less pedestrian-friendly. There are fewer people on the street, fewer people shopping. More parking- -less human space; less parking -- more vitality; it is a much followed scheme with every communityyou look at. Other communities that have recognized the loss of their downtown's vitality, and have instituted oflStreet parking changes that are similar to what they are offering, have seen an incredible return of vitality of their downtowns. He said sources are out there to demonstrate and give evidence to this. The big questions that always come up-- where will the parking go? how are we going to accommodate the cars? I) Through shared on-street parking which means fmding a way to share it equiUbly among people who want to use it. He felt at some point they have to institute some kind of feeparking schedule. The Parking Task Force is working on a plan. They have something that is going to come to Commission soon, and they are actually excited about that too. 2) Let the market decide how much parking is necessary for each development. Rather than having the City demand there be an over-supply of parking so there is never a shortage, let the shortage beginto dictate that someone develop parking, and tax money available for the community to gain off from it. There is revenue to be gained from selling that parking, and there is tax money to be gained off that revenue. He again said he Is really excited about this. Michelle Sandoval, 686 Roosevelt City Councilmember; also member of the Parking Committee, which she said is extremely diverse and very effective in getting things done, Chris Nelson is their fearless leader who owns several businesses Downtown, e.g., Sirens, the Fountain Cafe, and Jordini's, and on the way to her various businesses is always counting empty parking spaces; how many are in which -- 2 hour, 4 hour, 24 hour. There is a lot of energy on this committee. Ms. Sandoval noted one thing they realized, they had a consulnnt's report that was terrific, but it did say we are going to need to come up with 350 parking spaces in the next 10 years. They aren't ignoring that, but they are trying to go down the list-- do the short list, the things that don't cost money; try todo things that will be effective. They are doing some parking changes in terms of hours-- some have worked, some have not, and they have changed them back. Planning Commission Minutes, llnuary 27, 2005 I Page 3 . . . Some people had concerns that this is a fmal step in the plan; it is not. They are looking ata very broad spectrum of ideas, implementation of both the Comp Plan, but also the parking consultant's report. She did not want people to lose sight, or just look at the short term. They are looking at the long term. She wanted Mr. Burke from the Leader to know they are looking at the long term. She noted something interesting today as she was on her way to Quilcene to show property, listening to radio conversation on how to keep cities vital. They made the observation that you don't make cities fer cars, you make cities for people. Reflecting on that and knowing she was coming this evening, it is really that simpll>- you make it for people; you don't make it for cars. She thought they have slipped someplace in most of our cities, that they start guiding all their decisions to the ease of the automobile-- 44% of all the people commuting into Seattle go singly. Ms. Sandoval again pointed out this is just one piece, and she supposed they would get some grief for it, but she also thought that in a way many people wanted this in order to have a fair economic impact on people who wanted to build new here, or who wanted to redevelop. She pointed out this came from the Kur Orr scare, and now it is time to take a look back. They want people to build on those empty lots, want people to revitalize buildings, and she thinks this is a good start. Chair Randels called for the testimony from Dave Robison who asked to delay his testimony until later to be able to answer questions. Chair Randels requested Mr. Robison give his testimony in the order called for. Dave Robison, 652 56th Street Northwest Maritime Center, also serves on the Parking Advisory Committee. Mr. Robison basically wanted to say that Port Townsend is a living breathing working maritime community and is part of why it is healthy, vital and attractive. In many ways we are a resort community. If you look around the nation, resort communities are faced with ttaffic circulation and parking problems. Those are g>od problems for us to have. The solutions, however, are not easy, and the City has begun to grapple with some solutions. They are long-range solutions, and we are going to have to take a lot of baby steps to get to the point where we are addressing the need for 300+ parking spaces over the next 10 years. He thinks the parking strategy put together by Kittleson and Sons with input from the Parking Advisory Committee is totally "right on," is based on state-of-the-art urban planning, historic preservation, economic development planning strategies, and we really need to take some corrective action now to deal with a code that is totally out of date and not effective. This is only one piece of a very large strategy. He thinks the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council that we need some leadership at the Council level and the business community level to fully implement the parking study that was put together by the Parking Advisory Committee. Jim McCarron, 4875 Hwy 20, Port Townsend Dr. McCarron said he has lived in Port Townsend since 1975, is a burned out surgeon and is now rapidly burning out as a "developer." He is currently building a building Uptown by the hospital v.here there is a severe need for parking. He said he is fighting a battle, and admitted Mr. Randall is being helpful. He was glad he is ahead of the new rules, because the 5' parking spot around a lot is hard to comply with; make it 8' and you have that ouch less lot to work with. He owns property downtown. This is great for him, but the rest of the town should not get penalized for the fact Downtown is rather hoping that somehow parking goes away. Dr. McCarron noted we have an aging population here. An aging population doesn't do well on bicycles anymore, and like it or not, our public transportation is not adequate enough. He referenced the requirements for the medical space -. I parking space for each 2 employees and 1.5 for exam room. He hates ha,jng to play games with a situation, to say it is not an exam room. Doctors don't have time to examine patients anymore; this is a consultation room, etc. You could play the game with the thing, but if a doctor has 3 exam rooms and maybe 2 employees, at 4.5, all of a sudden he needs 8 or 9 parking spaces for just I working professional. He finds some of these rules a little too easy to be used tyrannically. "Tyrannically"-- he paid a fme today to the City for starting work on a project without hav~ that little part of the permit organized. He said that is game playing, and the City is quite capable of doing that. He asked that they protect them, the developers, from the heavy handedness of the City. Same with the bicycle parking-- has to be no further away than the closest non-ADA parking space. That is too open to somebody saying -- you absolutely have to have the bicycle parking. In his opinion, if somebody is athletic enough to come on a bicycle, they can walk 50 feet to the building. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 I Page 4 . . . One headache he is dealing with, up by the hospital between 9th and lOth Streets, he has 32 feet between the pavement and his property line on 9th Street. He said-- 32 feet and he wants to put in angled parking. One thing they are told is a nice thing to aim for -- you have a straight, perfect, cheap route into parking, and you put it in. You put parallel parking on a 200-foot edge of a block, and you get at most 8 parking spaces; you put angled parking into the same and you get 18- 20. But they say it is too dangerous up by the hospital; it's a major connector between Sheridan and McPherson. What's a major connector? The 32 feet, the 5 feet-- you have 27 feet. By Bread and Roses we have angled parking-- 16 feet from the end of the white line to thecurb. In front of the Bishop Hotel we have angled parking that works fine-- believe it or not, only 14 feet. He puts his big Suburban in there; it fits and there is still room. He feels these are some of the things with parking. He asked if he couldappeal to the City Council and was told it is Public Works that deals with this, and any appeal has to be to them. It is hard for someone who is trying to provide parking; he has enough parking to serve his facility under the present parking rules. He aked if the rules are suddenly changed as is being proposed, where is his lower floor project? Ifhe makes it medical space, all of a sudden he is going to have 14,000 sq. ft. across the street from the hospital and is told he doesn't have enough parking to serve this, based on 30 exam rooms in the preliminary plan -- 45 parking spaces. His medical clinic Downtown has about 8 or 9 parking spaces that has served the public real well for a long time until people dido't want to deal with "bad parking DowntONn," so now he is a bit of a white elephant. Dr. McCarron said those are the frustrations the developer is dealing with, but don't put an 8 foot parking requirement around the thing. You still have in this the recommended access of 12 feet; the Fire D<partment doesn't want 12 feet. He said anyone who has ever gone in and out of Madrona Clinic or the Radio Shack would tell you how difficult a 12-foot thing is to get to. If we are going to change things, we should change a lot of different things, and make it better. Let's not discriminate against the rest of the City trying to change the parking rules. It should apply somewhat evenly to the rest. Bruce Tipton, 325 Jackson, Port Townsend Mr. Tipton declared that he gave up. Seeking to follow the rules -- why should they have them? Suspend the rules -- everything we thought was wrong, parking problems, are only a local perception. People from crowded urban areas wouldn't think of driving downtown where they live; they think this place is greatjlo problems at all. He went on to say consultants from afar have been hired to count the cars. and they can't tell an ovef utilized, illegal space from the skate park with no cars at all. Then, 10% of the cars parked in the 3-hour zone actually park for 3 - 4 hours causing economic ttauma to the Police Department, actually 20% loss of utilization of the affected spaces. The City pays thousands of dollars to secure parking at Fort Worden, but refuses to invest in their own future Downtown. The only re!jlonse is to send in the well-intentioned, but misled group of volunteers to write tickets. (He said -- not count the cars, we have to pay consultants to do that.) How can/why should we generate a return for Downtown when we throw money in directions tht we will never do so elsewhere? In one instance we recognize the need for access, and in the other we can only look at profit, whereas the access is the profit. He referred to a Planning Commission meeting previously and his excess of passion when hespoke to this issue; his humorous suggestion of boat parking spaces went right over the heads of the confused audience. A Parking Board member said he wished he had my passion, and he responded, "Well, so do I." He said they all sounded kind of tired, out of excuses; suspending the rules was all they had to offer after years of study and consultation with the Maritime Center and the City regarding their use. It seems like a weak Plan when we are talking that the future is still the same. We are stillgoing to need the same things in 5 to 10 years. He stated that the Director of the Maritime Center ran overtime saying he spent a long time addressing his unfounded concerns, and after the meeting came to accuse him of taking pot shots at him. All he asks -- that he work with the same rules; dido't he help write these rules that we have all had for the last 10 years? His job is to make the Center fit the community, not adjust the community to suit the Center's needs. Parking rules were established to control size, scale and impact of the development. If the development can't or won't conform, we don't want it, or at least that was the idea when the rules were established. They were never designed to make it quick or easier, or manipulable by political influence. Excess or over-capacity parking -- we are not Silverdale. There is no place really to create excess or over- capacity parking. Is the worse thing that could happen here a parking garage close enough to be useful? The City, the Port and the State built the ill-fated Park & Ride lot in a location more suited to the Port's needs, although the Port patrons do not park there. We do not charge to park there. The City should be ashamed as they cover up a dozen or so of the limited spaces that do exist -- those that no one has created in 10 years. Never mind, we probably have too many, anyway-- 15 maybe 18 for the skate park, 12 or 15 for the City Hall expansion; maybe another Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 I Page 5 . . . dozen or so at the end of Water Street when the Maritime Center spreads out over the vacated street (most folks probably don't realize that street doesn't even exist.) Pretty soon you are talking about real numbers of lost spaces-- about $150,000 at current rates of$36.60/space. Would that do anything? Probably not; theCity would just give it to the Fort via the State over a few years. Mr. Tipton thought covering up these spaces is sure a lot more fun and easier than figuring out the answer; and they're not coming back. He is still unclear as to whether anyone has attually paid this parking assessment. The public perception is, is this is a real number. The Maritime Center might be at its highest evolution right now, a beautiful dock with open views of the water, open space. Perhaps an open pavilion like the one at Union Wharf; retain the visual access to the water that will disappear in the current plan. Mr. Tipton proceeded to give a new proposal. Chair Randels noted Mr. Tipton was over his time and asked him to come back in the regular order. Chair Randels asked if anyone who had already testified cared to give additional testimony. Scott Walker Mr. Walker said he understood the passionate anger shown here about the changes that are coming. After studying this problem for a number of years, therelationships are direct between parking and its effect on the vitality of the community. If these people would spend the time to educate themselves about those relationships, he thought they would be on board with this. Dave Robison Mr. Robison made the point of clarification.- it was inaccurately reported in last week's paper; he did not write the parking code. The parking code was in place prior to his employment with the City. He did work for the City for 7 years, and was responsible for working with the community in the development of their Comprehensive Plan. With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan July 16, 1996, they made an amendment to the parking code which would totally exempt all historic buildings from parking requirements in he Downtown for the express purpose and intent to foster historic revitalization of the older buildings and the upper floors of the older buildings. He indicated there was a huge debate at the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan about exempting all developuent in Downtown, but there was a fear on the part of the Council at that point that Kur Orr could come in and redevelop Thomas Oil because it was pending. The City was trying to buy it at that time-- the City did not buy it. The non- profit organization, Northwest Maritime Center, was formed with the express purpose of buying that property and developing it appropriately in context with the community's Comprehensive Plan and Waterfront Plan. One last fact regarding the Northwest Maritime Center, 60% of that site is dedicated in public open space. Mr. Robison said they could put parking in-- it is not a good use of that site. Bruce Tipton Mr. Tipton gave his humorous new proposal suggesting a system that when your car passes the Boat Have it is linked into a cable system with the motor turned off, towed down Water Street to Monroe, up to Lawrence, back Kearney Street to Water and around again. He said when you want your car back you simply take any passing car or wait for your own to carre around again. He continued, receiving a response of laughter from everyone. Chair Randels asked if there were any Staff response to any points made during Public Testimony. Staff ResDonse Mr. Toews Mr. Toews responded to Dr. McCarron's commenl'l saying he believed Dr. McCarron was making reference to some of the minimum dimensional requirements in 17.72.180. He stated those provisions have not been proposed for any substantive amendment in this draft document. He thought they had been retainedlargely unchanged since initial adoption of the code. He indicated that two weeks ago during the workshop it was brought to the Commission's attention that the City Public Works Department had recommended these provisions really be more appropriately paced within the City's engineering design standards (EDS) rather than within the code, and that this section simply refer to the EDS, and the standards be appropriately modified. He thought in doing so, that certainly might make provision for angled Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page 6 . . . parking and more innovative parking configurations that could address the type of situation Dr. McCarron identified. Mr. Randall Mr. Randall indicated he was involved in Dr. McCarron's design review and added that he believed Dr. McCarron was right. In last year's C-I1 Design Review Standards edits, they did increase some of the landscape spaces. They were finding in 5' wide strips with cars parking on both sides, the trees were being damaged. They basically said that in strips that had trees, they need to be 8' to allow for reasonable root area for the trees and to prevent them from being damaged, and they did make some tweaks to it. He reminded that ifthere is a situation where a couple offeet are going to make or break something, they still have an alternate parking lot landscaping provision in the code that can allow modification of standards. They do want to have parking lots be as efficient as possible; they are finding in some cases the tree areas are too narrow, e.g., Subway parking lot. Mr. Randall responded to Dr. McCarron's comments regarding on-street parking, something outside this code, something regulated by the Public Works Department, that the Public Works Director makes a determination- _ the safe type of on-street parking in a given situation. He said it is possible in a given situation that, over time, striping can be changed and more intense use like parallel to angle parking can be imposed. There is still opportunity to try to change that, but he wanted to clarifY it is outsde this code. At 7:50 p.m. Chair Randels closed public testimony. He asked if there were Planning Commission questions of any speaker or Staff. Plannim! Commission Ouestions Q Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Randall if the C-II design standards will change? Will any of the off-street parking standards change? A Mr. Randall: Use tables in the proposed code would affect businesses locating in C-II. In most cases, both the minimum and maximum are being reduced. Q Ms. Hersey: Downtown, if there were a new hotel or condos (put in upstairs in one of the buildings, I.e. Cannery Building and/or Point Hudson), with these rules of no offstreet parking, none of these would need any off street parking? A Mr. Toews: The Cannery Building was exempt underthe existing code, because it was a renovation of an historic structure. Establishment of a new hotel, under these regulations, would also be exempt from planning off-street parking. The question, would the market allow that? There is nothing in the ewe that would preclude the development proponent of a hotel from providing offstreet parking. One would expect that most savvy developers would seek to provide adequate parking for their clientele. Q Ms. Hersey: What about Point Hudson? How is that going to be handled as far as any development? Whatever the Port puts there, or whatever is decided there, there is nothing that is going to regulate them to put in offstreet parking? A Mr. Toews reiterated that within the entire limits of the National Register Historic District, including Point Hudson, there would be no City requirement to provide new offstreet spaces for new development, adaptive reuse, or change of use. That is not to say that a development applicant or proponent wouldn'tseek to provide parking for their clientele. Q Ms. Hersey: If the Planning Commission and the Council pass this regulation, no need for offstreet parking, would it be assumed because the City is undergoing a building project right now, that it would besomewhat ofa conflict of interest? Has that been discussed at all? A Mr. Toews said he was not aware that it had. He thinks it is a vested development application already, and the laws in place at the time the application vested pertain to the arnex. Mr. Randall: Because City Hall itself was historic, the parking lot behind it was optional parking. Its not required; so, when the City Hall Annex came through, they applied the code as it is currently written which provides a lO-car credit. Basically, you add up the spaces required and deduct 10 for a single-use building like the City Hall Annex. They applied that number, which he thought resulted in approximately 16 or 17 parking spaces. When they deducted 10, it was single digit numbers that are being provided on the site. They are eliminating two driveways and creating one. Every time you eliminate a driveway you get two credits for every single oI>street space you create. That formula, basically combined with the restriping of the street to create more efficient parking, as well as some spaces provided on-street, does comply with the code. Mr. Toews: Clarified this is a vested project, and the changes do not affect it. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005/ Page 7 . . . Ms. Hersey just wanted to make sure they were okay because they are public issues. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Requirement for 2 spaces for single-family dwellings in the proposed new tables -- she thought they had talked about that being 1. A Mr. Toews: Concurred and also thought they had talked about that at their October workshop. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Is that remaining 2 proposed? A Mr. Toews: Weighing your deliberations tonight, we can certainly change that. Q Ms. Slabaugh: When Mr. Goldman was talking about the Gateway Plan, she wondered about an overhead showing one of the goals to look differently at areas of the City that are more caForiented. She asked if that Gateway area is being treated differently in this document. A Mr. Toews: Replied it was, that it is acknowledged to be in an auto-oriented part of town, which is why the standards in Table 17.72.080 pertain. There are narrative provisions that more specifically clarify the mixed use areas and the fact that upper story development in the mixed use centers is exempt from 17.72.080. Only the ground floor uses are required. Q Ms. Slabaugh: The Gateway area is mixed use zoning? A Mr. Toews: No, it is primarily C-I1. The exemption addresses C-Ill Uptown and Downtown. Table 17.72.080 addresses primarily C-Il in the Gateway area and everything else. The narrative provisions make special distinction for M/U-CI and M/U-CII. Chair Randels stated that at the beginning of the meeting, either Mr. Toews or Mr. Randall had mentioned something about the February 10 meeting, and he asked if they were recommending they complete action on this issue at that meeting? Mr. Toews replied the recommendation would be, that tonight the Commission identify any desired changes and any particular fmdings you would like reflected in the report. We will prepare the draft and bring it back for ratification on the 10th. Mr. Randall said that if possible they always prefer that deliberations, a motion and a recommended action occur on the night of public testimony. They were not advocating they defer that, but Mr. Toews was saying they could come back with whatever their recommeulation is in writing for them to see at the next meeting, to make sure it is right. Chair Randels stated that at workshops various issues are discussed, and suggestions made. Sometimes it is obvious there is consensus, and sometimes perhaps not that obvious, but he was concerned that those issues get lost. He admitted he raised issues at the last workshop and probably did at the one in October, but they have had a couple of meetings on this already, thrown out some ideas, and he does not wart those ideas to get lost. He did not know how, except for dredging back through the minutes if they are available, they can do that unless there is someone who keeps a different kind of record, other than minutes, of those kinds of things. He felt thiswas a weakness in their process, and it concerns him. Ms. King felt it was up to each individual planning member to write down and keep track of concerns or things they want changed. Ms. Hersey thought she recalled from her 4 years on the Comrrcision that throughout the workshops they made changes and brought them back; it wasn't just a oneshot. If we did a consensus, those would get worked into the proposal, so that by the time they had a public hearing they were close to having the true document they really wanted, so they weren't making broad changes at one meeting. She proposed they go back to the old way of making changes at each workshop. Mr. Randall explained the use of workshops varies. Sometimes, when the ordinance is more evoNng and we have a very rough draft, we use it both to inform you of the issues as well as flesh the draft out. He thought in this case Mr. Toews had what was pretty much a complete draft ready to go, and we tried to use the workshops to really give the Commission some background on why the changes were being proposed. These were formatted a little different from some of the others, like the GII, where you would make suggestions and I would give you a new draft the next time around. He said it depends uJDn the needs of the ordinance and needs of the Planning Commission how they will handle that. Ms. Hersey said it seems like when it is illhouse, it gets the changes; otherwise, it doesn't. Mr. Toews clarified that in looking at his notes from Octob... 28, which he had just done, there was one change the Commission clearly desired at that meeting-- changing single family dwellings from 2 spaces to I space. Other than that they were really more in the way of questions. Ms. Slabaugh also remembered coocern around parking management, which has also been public testimony tonight. She said that is outside of this, but related. She wanted to hear from the Parking Advisory Board; that is when they sent Mr. Toews offlo consult with them, and he also taIled to the Port Townsend Bicycle Association. Chair Randels said there was that, but also what he thought a consensus that they ought to get rid of a Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page 8 . . . lot ofminusha and pass it over to the Public Works Department. Ms. King was not sure there was a consenns on that. Chair Randels agreed that is a <langer, if you are not making a motion, that they need to be more specific at the start of these discussions in the future as to how they are going to handle a particular issue. Mr. Toews noted that during their workshop 2 weeks ago, his fIrst recollection of it being placed squarely in the record, the recommendation that some of these standards be removed and placed into engineering design standards. He did not recall a whole lot of substantive discussion with specific direction to do so in a draft prior to public hearing; otherwise, he would have done so. Chair Randels declared that was fair enough. Mr. Randall thought it was what they heard tonight, that Mr. Toews stood up and said this is something they are going to consider in the future and talk with Public Works. He was a little concerned about doing that at this late date, and thought that might be more of a measure for future housekeeping when they are reorganizing codes to make them read better. Engineering design standards really apply to public streets; that is rather their current purpose. This is applying to private land and the design of parking lots on private land. He was not sure this was quite the right fit, but even if it were he would beconcerned about making a major change like that this late. He thought Mr. Toews was saying that is something they would be taking to the Public Works Department to see if it made sense in the future. Chair Randels then called for Planning Commission Deliberation and Action. Plannint! Commission Deliberation & Action It was determined to go through the Draft Amendment page by page noting any changes. 17.72.010 Purpose~ Q Ms. Slabaugh: Mr. Goldman proposed they add reference to the Gateway Plan here. She was curious as to what Staff thought, without over-burdening this with references to a lot of existing plans. Does it really change anything to add that? A Mr. Toews: The Gateway Development Plan is adopted and incorporated by reference within the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is his understanding, the Gateway Plan has always pertained more to form and character and design and really doesn't have that much to say about dT-street parking. Mr. Randall: It talks about the location of parking in relationship to buildings. It is actually referenced in other parts of the zoning code, primarily in the Purpose of the CII Design Standards. Mr. Toews: To be candid, the real difficulty has been that the Gateway Plan, although it's adopted, isn't the code. It has applied, at least in some instances in the past, that polices and narrative direction in that Plan have really only come into play when there have been projects of "fficient size to trigger SEP A. Once you trigger SEP A, the whole panoply of city policies may be used in crafting mitigation measures to condition individual proposals. If you have proposals under that SEP A threshold, provisions in the Gateway Plan don'talways come into play. With regard to the specific suggestion and testimony this evening, he thought he would need to go back to the Gateway Development Plan and see how they might call out some of that policy direction specifically in a purpose statement here. Purposes articulated in 0 I 0 really relate more specifically to policy direction contained within the Comp Plan Land Use and Transportation elements. If there is similar policy that the changes also give effect to, contained in the Gateway DeveloJ1llent Plan, he would be happy to call those out and include them in this purpose statement. Q Mr. Randels: If the Gateway Plan is already part of the Comprehensive Plan, and if this already references the Comprehensive Plan, by inclusion it already represmts the Gateway Plan, because it is part of the bigger Plan; it's already done. The other side, it's done, but not in so many words. What would be the harm in including the words? He did not see any. Just the fact that it's not statutory language, doe",'t mean you can't refer to it. The Comprehensive Plan itself is not totally statutory language. A Mr. Toews: Not at all. That was his point. He was just trying to articulate how the Development Plan had been used. Unlike many provisions in the genellll Comp Plan, it has not been turned into specific regulations, but there is no reason why we couldn't fold in some language here in the purpose statement. Q Ms. Slabaugh commented that the reason she hesitated to make a motion is she agrees if it is c(J{ered, why add verbiage. Unless there is the spirit of something in the Gateway Plan-- our testimony tonight made reference to something like graceful spaces. If the spirit of that is not being incorporated into the entire rest of this document, there may be reason to do that. If it doesn't have any conflict in spirit, why not just leave it as it is? A Mr. Toews: Reiterated he did not think the Gateway Development Plan, other than the locational requirements of parking, landscaping and basically design form and streetscape improvements, has specific direction with regard to the number of parking spaces, e.g., such should be provided for various uses. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page 9 . . . Q Ms. Hersey: Thought C-I1 design standards cover that. Ms. Slabaugh said she was hearing that. A Mr. Randall: C-I1 design standards rather covers the private side of the Gateway Plan. The public side of the Gateway Plan, what goes into the street, is covered in the engineering design standards. Both ofthose documents refer to the Gateway Plan. We also have the ability to trigger SEPA. If we somehow missed it, didn't get it in normal regulations, ifit's in the Gateway Plan and we need to apply it as a mitigation to a project, we can do that through SEP A. Ms. Hersey said she was okay not to bring itin. CONSENSUS: No change 17.72.030@ Off-street parking and loading requirements. Q Ms. Slabaugh: Pointed out a discrepancy regarding a waiver pursuant to PTMC 17.72.150 (fee-in-lieu provision which has been eliminated). A Mr. Randall: Not the whole section; just the reference? Ms. Slabaugh concurred. CONSENSUS: Delete from Item C: "..,; provided, ha":,,,:e., that all)' awuer granled a v:ai':er or eertaill .e'luiremenls pUFORant 10 PTMC I ':'.n.IS0 shall "elhereafte. .elie'/ed of sueh reElUiremeRts; pr9~'ided, that all required fees ka":e beeR paid. . . ." 17.72.060(A) Change of use. Mr. Toews: Correct calculations as noted by <>-mail from Mr. Randels: CONSENSUS: Changes: 2,000/:;00 400 sq. ft.) ~ 'I- (Change to: ~ spaces) Required parking for new use ~ -h> (Change to: 1 space) Table 17 72 ORO Food Service Uses, Commercial Q Mr. Randels: Questioned the rationale for driv<>-through restaurants -- does not have per employee standard whereas others do. Does that mean burger flippers don't drive? A Mr. Toews: Including language to make it mirror provisions for other restaurant uses would be fine. Did not think there was a cogent rationale for not doing so. Q Mr. Walker: Thought ratio I for each 50 sq. ft. is really a lot. Ms. Slabaugh agreed. Mr. Randels: Mr. Toews' proposed change would be to make restaurants read the same as the restaurants below: II!!<! each 2 emplovees , plus I space for each Q seats A Mr. Randall: Basically, the old standard was what it is now (I per 50). Mr. Toews has the maximum and minimum exactly the same. If we add employees, we are increasing the parking requirements for driveins over what they currently are. Q Mr. Randels: Was not recommending that. He just didn't understand the rationale for not taking employees into account. If the use of 50 sq. ft. does do that, albeit indirectly, that is okay with him. He did not have any idea how these numbers translate in terms of actual spaces comparing McDonalds to a si;.down restaurant and just wanted to make sure that was taken into account. A Mr. Walker: Maybe a better route to go is to apply the same standards to drive-through restaurants as you do to the others. Mr. Randall: Concurred. Mr. Toews: Also concurred stating, not to make the distinction. Mr. Randall: Strike the one for 50 and go with the same standards. Chair Randels suggested strike that category . Mr. Toews: And say "with or without." CONSENSUS: Strike entire category: RestallFHRt!lil mUll dri.'e in RF dri:o'e tkFAlwh sen'ip.l'! Change remaining Use item to read: "Restaurants with or without drive-in or drive- tbromrh llii:ervice." Leave standards as written. Mr. Walker asked to make a suggestion. Ms. Hersey objected, indicating she was not sure that was appropriate at a public hearing. She asked him to pass his suggestion to Staff. Chair Randels agreed. Table 17.72 ORO Recreational and Cultural Uses Q Mr. Randall: Conveyed the question about bicycle requirements: Health Clubs require2 spaces nlus I space ner each 10 vehicle narkinQ" stalls; Libraries require 4 snaces DIllS 1 SDace ner each 5 vehicle narkinQ stalls. Why the difference? Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 1 Page 10 . . . A Mr. Toews gave the rationale that health clubs is often something you are doing on the way or from work, carrying a gym bag and a change of clothes. Q Mr. Randall: It looked like libraries and stadiums are higher categories. A Mr. Toews: Libraries in particular have higher usage by minors. Mr. Randall: Paying dues to go to a recreational club, you are probably seeing more adults than kids. CONSENSUS: No Change Table 17.72.080 Residential Uses Mr. Randels said at their last meeting, which he thought an exampe where they had a clear consensus, they talked about a separate lower minimum for congregate housing for seniors, and also just for regular housing for seniors. Q Mr. Randels: There are two different categories of senior citizen housing, one with lowerparking need than regular multi-family housing; the other which has even less need. We talked about including that, and he anticipated such a change would have shown up in this next draft. If this would have come up in October, he knew he would have fOlgotten it by now. Ms. King: There is no category for senior housing. Mr. Randels: Acknowledged that and suggested they create such a category and a sul>category. Mr. Emery: There is Nursing, Rest and Convalescent Mr. Randels: These are two categories between multHamily housing and nursing homes. A Mr. Toews: Just to be clear, you are making reference to what type of housing? Q Mr. Randels: They are both multi-family, both age designated for seniors, one of which is just general senior citizen housing. A Mr. Randall: Senior multi-family housing, no care basically. You are living on your own and totally independent in an apartment. Q Mr. Randels: The next example would be Discovery View, congregate housing forseniors. They don't drive as much; the first group doesn't drive as much as regular apartments. Ms. King questioned parking for San Juan Commons. Mr. Randall noted that is senior housing and government assisted, which under the current code provides a much lower standard than regular multHamily. They found those people drive as much as regular people. Chair Randels concurred. Mr. Randall said that is straight senior housing; they have had a big problem with not having enough parking. Chair Randtls added, because somebody thought they should have a lower standard for governmenlassisted seniors. Q Ms. King: You are proposing a higher standard for senior housing? A Chair Randels replied he is proposing that if the standard here for multi-family, unrestricted as to age, results in an accurate number -- a rational number of spaces for that group; he submitted that if you take the same building, put it next door and restrict it to people above a certain age, the amount of spaces needed for that project will be less. Ms. King disagreed and again referred to San Juan Commons. Chair Randels added that San Juan Commons has less parking than a market rate senior citizen housing project would have. He suggested getting rid of the economic distinction. Poor people drive; just not as nice cars. Ms. Hersey indicated it is government subsidized, so they didn't have to have as many parking spaces as normal. Ms. King concurred and said they need more parking. She did not think that was a good example. Ms. Hersey found through visiting and working with EHHO that it's not the people who are living there, but visitors. She asked if employee parking was ever brought into it-- for senior assisted living? Q Ms. Slabaugh: Under residential treatment facilities including group homes, it has 1 space for each staff member, plus I space for each 5 residents. A Mr. Toews: Nursing, rest or convalescent homes are called out on the next page: Service Uses, Health-- I space per each 2 regular staff members, plus I space per each 10 beds. Chair Randels said that was a lot less than these other groups would need. Mr. Toews said Mr. Randels was talking about the language that was stricken from the prior table for Residential, government assisted hOl.ing . . . Chair Randels replied he was not talking about that, and said a differentiation based on income is not appropriate, and doesn't think it makes sense, but what does is a differentiation in the number of spaces based on age. Mr. Randall added, recognizing that seniors are probably only going to have one car. Chair Randels replied, or less. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page II . Q Ms. King: They are going to be visited. She did not know how you are going to come up with a standard. She asked Mr. Randels what he would propose rega-ding the 1.5 spaces for mult~family full of senior citizens? A Chair Randels: If it is just a standard senior citizen project without any congregate care of any kind, he thought I per unit would probably be enough, but maybe it's 1.25. Q Ms. King disagreed and asked why from 1.5 to 1.25? A Chair Randels: To encourage more development of those kinds of property. That would be useful; the extent you don't take up land with cars you are achieving that. Anybody that comes along is going to know something about the market; ifhe doesn't, he is going to do a market study that will either conclude that the minimum required here is sufficient, or he needs to do more. MOTION (1) Mr. Randels Staff research senior multi. family housing and report back to the oext meeting. SECOND VOTE Ms, Slabaugh All in favor Mr. Toews stated he would do a quick survey of senior multi-family versus standard and see how many cars per unit they have in each. Chair Randels concurred and asked to include a reasmable visitor factor. Frequently, visitor parking is one of the shortest supplies. . Ms. Slabaugh Reduce Minimum Required Parking Spaces for Singl<>-family Dwellings from 2 to I space per unit. Discussion: Mr. Emery asked to add clarifying perunit, since they are talking about duplex, triplex and fourplex. Ms. Hersey asked if you go down to one car space per unit, for a duplex there be 2, a triplex 3? There was agreement. Friendly Amendment Mr. Emery Second to Friendly Amendment Ms. Slabaugh AMENDED MOTION: Add "clarifying per unit" MOTION (2) Reduce Minimum Required Parking Spaces for Single-family Dwellings from 2 spaces to I space per unit, clarifying unit including duplex, triplex, or fourplex SECOND Mr. Randels Discussioo: Ms. Hersey asked if this on-street or off-street parking. She was informed it is offstreet. VOTE All in favor Tahle 17 72.080 Service Uses, Health Q Mr. Randels: Asked Mr. Toews regarding his <>-mail about hospital and nursing homes, I space per 2 staff members, if there was any reason not to look at a per shift standard as was done with some other uses. A Mr. Toews: Thought it was in some manufacturing uses. Q Mr. Randels: It seems the hospital has a shift system that is very similar to manufacturing shifts. 'He did not know if that would change anything. They might make it per shift, then have a smaller requirement and the result might be exactly the same. A Mr. Toews: To clarify, hospitals, nursing, re!t or convalescent homes would be subject to a per/shift or the highest use shift standard? Mr. Randels concurred and said to the Commissioners that he would like to do the same as senior citizen housing, to ask Staff to look into it and see ifit makessense to have a different standard. MOTION I) Mr, Randels. Ask Staff to research hospitals, nursing, rest or convaleseent homes being subject to per/shift or highest shift standard and hring hack to the next meeting. SECOND Ms. Slabaugh Discussion: You mean making it shifts as opposed to what it is now? Chair Randels replied it would be to look into it to see if it makes sense. VOTE All in favor . Q Ms. Hersey asked Mr. Toews regarding Dr. McCarron's comments, Offices, medical and dental, I 'Pace per each 2 staff members, plus 1.5 per each exam room -- how that number comes about. A Mr. Toews: It is to make provision for the parent in the waiting room or the 30/40 something adult accompanying the elderly parent to the exam room. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page 12 . . . Q Ms. Hersey: So, two people are coming in one car. A Mr. Toews: Not in all cases. In some instances that is the case. Q Ms. Hersey: Either one or two people. Why is it I space per each 2 people instead of per exam room? A Mr. Toews: We don't know how many people are going to be arriving on a given day for medical treatment. It has to be in relation to the space in the office. Q Ms. Hersey: Whether they are sitting in the exam room or sitting out waiting for the client, there is still one car coming in per exam room; she thought 1.5 was too high a need. They are all coming in the one car. A Mr. Randels: That is not quite right. Those people are in the exam room, or one is and the other sitting out in the waiting room -- then he drives and comes 5 minutes early, intending to go into the same exam room. Q Ms. Slabaugh: We are talking about a minimum here. The City could require a lesser minimum and the market could.. . A Mr. Randels: The same could be true for a factory or McDonalds as well. Ms. Hersey said if they were talking a minimum, she would like reduce it to I. MOTION 2)Ms. Hersey Reduce Minimum Required Parking Spaces for Offices, medical and dental from 1.5 spaees per each exam room to I space. SECOND VOTE Mr, Emery 5 in favor; Mr. Randels opposed 17.72.170 Parking facilities - Plan required. 17.72.180 Parking faeilities - Minimum dimensions. 17.72.180 Table - Minimum Parkiug Lot Dimensions 17.72,190 Parking facilities - Landscaping. 17.72.200 Bicycle parking facilities - Design standards Q Mr. Randels: At the workshop last month, they briefly discussed the differentiation between "regular" and "compact" spaces. Unsure ifhe correctly heard, but he thought it an issue that if they did try to eliminate this level of detail, that would be covered by the engineering design standards-- trying to figure what is the mix of vehicles in a community. A Mr. Toews: Also the dimensions. Q Mr. Randels thought that was welI beyond the understanding of legislators, like the Commissioners and Councilors. They can do it, but it does not mean it will be very good. He thought this might be something they could delegate to people who have more expertise, who presumably deal with it more rationally and better. Ms. Slabaugh: What about the point, this is for private property. Mr. Randels said he heard that point and is amenable to it; he likes the other side too. A Mr. Toews: The City Engineer and Public Works Department recommended that with standards of this detail, the reader simply be referred to the Engineering Design Standards (EDS) Manual and these very specific requirements be eliminated from the code. That is, provided that manual can, h fact, be amended in a timely fashion to ensure these provisions are included in there, and that there are some standards for offstreet parking facilities in the EDS. He thought that would be a better way to go, and as the state of engineering and plaming for parking facilities evolves over time, those changes can be reflected periodically and updated in the EDS Manual without necessitating amending the code. MOTION Mr. Randels Ask Staff to consult with the engineering people and the Public Works Department to find out whether or not the EDS presently would cover this, and come back at our next meeting with a recommendation based on that. SECOND VOTE Mr. Emery All in favor Ms. Hersey indicated she had previously mentioned giving credit to peoplewho create parking for electric cars etc., that somehow they wouldn't have to have as many parking spaces ifthey had perhaps 23 electric car spaces or something, (perhaps hybrids, but they are standard size cars). Mr. Emery asked if there is a legal definition for golf carts now that are licensable? The City and State passed it. Ms. King asked if this is off-street parking? Ms. Hersey concurred, saying within a parking lot, perhaps electric cars next to handicapped. She thought someone should get credit for that. Ms. King asked if they would be smaller parking spaces so that other cars couldn't part there? Ms. Slabaugh explained, e.g., you would take out a set of regular parking spaces and instead of two regular, you could putthree electric car spaces. You are essentially promoting a better use of land. Mr. Randels indicated the risk is the effect of increasing the amount of impervious surface by creating empty spaces. Ms. King commented, empty spaces that aren't used-- electric cars can park in any space, it is not as though they are having a hard time parking. Ms. Hersey responded tlat it is not about having a hard time; it's about Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 I Page 13 . . . incentives, e.g., with norrmotorized. It's rather our whole issue -- Port Townsend is about alternatives: walking, biking, using non-gasoline cars. We are so forward thinking; City Council passed th~ ordnance to allow golf carts on city streets. She thought they should continue pushing for that, and asked Mr. Randall if he had heard anyone doing that in other communities. Mr. Emery asked if there is already some kind of selup for motorcycle parking? It is a smaller scale, but it is an encouraged use. Mr. Randall replied that ifhe were asked to address it, he would probably do something like, the property owner has the option of taking up to "X" number of spaces and making them motorcycle spaces or Oectric vehicle spaces, which could maybe have a reduced size (an acknowledgment that business knows they are going to have a certain number of people ttaveling that way). Ms. Hersey suggested that maybe in their building they might have a smaller envelope, a corner or something, where standard size parking does not work; why not be able to give them credit if they wanted to put electric car parking there? Mr. Randall was inclined to feel the others, that it seems electric cars are rather used as regula cars and that space can then be used for electric or regular cars. It is a more efficient use of space, rather than making it small and only available to electric cars. Ms. Slabaugh stated it is a spot you couldn't use anyway, like motorcycle spots, usually in little triangles. Mr. Randels said there is nothing to prevent you from doing that. Mr. Randall thought what you are going to save by making the space a little smaller is a little deceiving, because they still require the turn-around space, the get-to-it space. Most ofthe space in a parking lot is for circulation and turn around. He thought there was potential loss by saving a couple square feet with a narrower space. Ms. Capron cited a very large parking garage in Seattle with an entre floor that has only compact car spaces, nothing else; a regular car won't fit in those spaces. She stated that floor is empty because none of the compact cars want to park in those spaces; they park in the regular places on the other floors. The nextquestion, how do we get the electric-car folks to park in those little spaces? Ms. Hersey thought to put them next to handicapped which is closer parking; the incentive, if you have an electric car, you would be closer. She had thought they needed to haw that discussion. Chair Randels recommended that if they come back and decide this level of detail isn't appropriately within their province, they could pass along a recommendation to the engineering people to take this, the Seattle parking garage, and all those other things into account. He is not sure it is wise trying to differentiate between compact and regular size. Ms. King asked what kind of recommendation would they be passing on? Mr. Randels suggested, as that technology evolves, and other tedmology evolves. Ms. King declared if there were a motion on the table now, she would not vote proposing electric car spaces. Mr. Randels agreed. Ms. King also thought she would be against having Public Works investigate it. Mr. Randels stated he was Slggesting they keep up with technology, including that issue. Mr. Toews did not see why, without even addressing the number of spaces required in the table in 17.72, the engineering design standards couldn't say you can have "X" percentage as spaces eserved for electric vehicles and have smaller dimensional requirements on those spaces which pertain to other vehicles, effectively reducing the amount of space that would be required for off.street parking. If the technology evolves and there is, in fact, a demand for that, he would expect the standards would reflect that. 17.72,200 Bicycle parking facilities - Design standards Q Ms. Slabaugh: Did not want to see those reduced in any way, and referenced previous comment regarding location. She would like to see the entire thing intact, even if they are in the engineering design manual. A Mr. Toews: Recommend including a statement regarding frames in 200.A. Mr. Randall: He had been one who grilled the planners, when drafting the GlI and also this, about bicycle spaces needing to be close to the doors. It was from his personal experienee, in requiring bicycle racks and going back and checking. He has been lectured more than once by disgruntled bicyclists about the racks being father away where lhey would never be used, that your bike is going to be stolen if you can't see it from the front door. They concluded to consider the location in the design review upfront, not as an afterthought. They don't want people spending $500 on bike racks that never get used. CONSENSUS: Include a statement regarding frames in 200,A Change numbering: 17.72,200 to: 17.72.210 -- Parking facilities - Maintenance. 17.72.210 to: 17.72.220 -- Off-Street loading and queuing spaces - Number required, Q Mr. Randels: Should what we asked you to look into also include 210 Maintenance? A Mr. Toews said he would consult with Public Works for their feedback. These are maintenance requirements, Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 I Page 14 . rather than design standards. Chair Randels: Suggested since it is a different issue, they leave it legislative. Q Ms. Hersey: Is the parking facility landscaping directly out ofGlI? A Mr. Randall: They modified that section when they last updated the GII design standards. You did edit it last time. We left it in the parking code, because that was the right place for it. When we presented the Commission with revised C-I1 design standards, there were a couple of sections of the parking code that were in there too. Chair Randels asked if there were any additional comments. CONSENSUS: Correct typographical errors: 17.72.180 Parking facilities - Minimum dimensions. Change 180,0 to read ".. .(allows forward cars.. .)" 17.72.190 Parking facilities - Landscaping. Change 190.C.7 to read ".,. at the time of planting .. .)" . 17,86.040 Permit review process. Q Ms. Hersey: Asked for clarification; she thought permit review Type III land use decision was extreme. A Mr. Randall: Type Ill, a public hearing decision, instead of perhaps Type II administrative variance? He also thought that a little harsh. The question, should parking variances be a Type II process instead of Type Ill? Q Ms. Hersey could not see having it a public review to worty about-- somebody's parking lot. A Mr. Randall: It would still be a public review. Q Mr. Randels: This would be a variance that could increase or decrease, correct? Mr. Randall concurred. Mr. Randels then asked if there was a rationale, something more for one or the other of those? Ms. Heri)y noted when they were going over these (with SEPA or Types II or Ill), they tried to allow for Staff to do the work at hand and not go through a Type III which is more expensive, more labor intense for them as well as Staff. A Mr. Randall: Mr. Toews pointed out that parking variances shall be processed as Type II: .040.B -- (Type II) minor variances and parking variances; .040.A -- (Type Ill) refers to all other variances in the City. 17.86.065 Alternative anoroval criteria - Off-street oarkinll and loadiol! variances. Mr. Toews relayed a suggestion he had received from Mr. Randels regarding criteria for granting a variance under A(I), (2) and (3), decreasing the offstreet parking. At least a couple of those do not pertain. Suggestion: Reference to .065A be eliminated in subsection .065B and merely require that applications for increases demonstrate joint use opportunities have been fully explored, and include a demand study supporting the need for an increase. Q Ms. Hersey: If somebody is going to have condos Downtown, and say they don't have to have any oflStreet parking, hut they really should have some. Do they then have to go through this process? A Mr. Randall: No, they just do it. There is no maximum. Mr. Toews: There is no minimum; there is no maximum. Q Ms. Hersey: Then what does this pertain to? A Mr. Toews: All areas out the National Register Historic District. Mr. Randall: Apply it to C-I1; a new grocery store that wants to do more than the maxinum. Ms. Hersey: Agreed. MOTION Mr. Randels Eliminate reference in .065A iu subsection .065B aud merely require tbat applications for increases demonstrate joint use opportunities have been fully explored, and include a demand study supporting the need for increase. SECOND Mr. Emery VOTE All in favor . Mr. Randall asked if what they heard was to go research these, make the specific changes, come back with findings in support, and the additional research on those couple of topics requested. Chair Rmdels added at point they would take up the entire package and put it to a vote. Mr. Randall said they would continue deliberations and final decisions until February 10, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 I Page 15 . . . Chair Randels reported that on the lOth of February they would complete the process on this issue and have a workshop on the ESA code amendments. On the 24th of February they will have a public hearing on the ESA code amendments. Assuming they will not !l't to deliberation and recommendations that night, they will revisit and complete work on that issue the 10th of March. Chair Randels asked Staff to make sure the new Commission Members get all the previous paperwork VII. UPCOMING MEETING February 10,2005 Deliberations/Report & Recommendation on Off.Street Parking & Loading Code Amendments; Public Workshop on ESA Code Amendments February 24, 2005 Open Record Public Hearing -- Proposed ESA Code Amendments March 10, 2005 Deliberations/Report & Recommendation on ESA Code Amendments Vlll. COMMUNICATIONS -- There were none Announcements: Memorial Service for former Planning Commissioner Jim Irvin, January 29, Presbyterian Church Steve Cora Benefit, January 29, Community Center X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Emery and seconded by Ms. Hersey. All were in favor. Adjournment was at 9: 10 p.m. This meeting is to be continued February 10,2005,7:00 p.m., Cedar Room of Waterman & Katz Building for deliberations and to make recommendation to City Council on the Off Street Parking & Loading Code Amendments. Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 2005 / Page 16