Planning for Downtown Parking April 7, 2010 Planning Commission
Introduction Review of 2009 Parking Study: Scope: Downtown Data collection Existing conditions Private and Public Parking Utilization Future Parking Demand Forecasts this data is consistent with land use forecasts used in transportation model and for downtown planning Parking Strategies General Strategies Strategies for downtown sub districts
Existing Parking Supply Very Little On-Street Parking
Parking Strategies Recommendations (Highlights of 2009 Parking Study) Revise parking code where needed so that parking compliments Design District Objectives Construct new on-street/off street/off-street parking supply Emphasize shared parking (On-street parking is a form of shared parking) Encourage Public/private partnerships for parking Encourage structured parking and/or hiding parking behind the buildings so as not to obstruct the pedestrian environment Encourage better signage to parking facilities Have multi-modal modal options for residents to encourage less driving
Parking Code Comparison Code comparison with Bellevue, Lynnwood, Kirkland, Mill Creek, Bothell, Edmonds Parking ratio requirement comparison for retail, restaurant/bar, and office Woodinville s s parking ratio requirements are very similar to our neighbor Bothell and our code requires as much or more parking than jurisdictions compared.
Parking Code comparison Very few types of uses listed for parking ratio requirements in Woodinville code PRO: Simplicity CON: More grey area when an applicant s use does not clearly fit into table of uses
Jurisdiction Credit for On-street Parking in parking ratio requirements? Are On-street parking requirements in public works street standards? Woodinville No No Kirkland No Yes Bellevue No- but reduced parking standards for those parts of Bellevue with onstreet parking as part of the requirement, so they do give credit in a non- direct way Yes, for certain areas Bothell Yes, for downtown Yes, on certain new streets in the downtown Lynnwood No Very limited Mill Creek Edmonds Shared Parking Comparison Yes, if part of the city s Town Center No, on-street parking already established as part of downtown so no additional on-street parking is needed. No, they are in downtown design manual No
On-Street Parking PROS: A form of shared parking, provides protection to pedestrian, also provides businesses with close access spots for shoppers Currently little to no on-street parking exists downtown, code revisions would be necessary to encourage or require it Possible 1:1 retail credit to developers for providing on-street parking
On-Street Parking Sample Cross-Sections
On-Street Parking Sample Cross-Sections
Scenario 1 Focus of code changes only to Pedestrian Core Design District, rest of parking code does not change. Reduce parking requirements in this district and discourage or prohibit large surface parking lots Possible incentives for structured parking Possible incentive for shared parking Possible incentives for multi-modal modal infrastructure and multi-modal modal programs (CTR)
Scenario 2 Maintains Maintains the code restrictions of scenario 1 Adds Adds additional incentives for Transition Area and Pedestrian Core Districts Possible Possible incentive: allow a bigger store if structured parking is done
Scenario 3 Maintains the code restrictions of Scenario 1 and Scenario2 Further Further expand the incentives and restrictions to the parking code in Scenario 1 & 2 to the entire city Additionally (1) (1) A complete update and revision of the current parking ratio requirements for new development; (2) (2) Provide a wider range of uses in the parking ratio requirement code; (3) (3) Specific parking requirements for mixed use developments.
In Conclusion What scenario is preferable to the Planning Commission? Other feedback