HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-23; City Council; N/A; Parking Requirements in RW ZoneDATE: August 29, 1980
TO: COUNCIL MEl".lBERS
FROM: Girard W. Anear, Council Member
SUBJECT: PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE RW ZONE
(Bristol Cove, Ocean Street, etc.}
i (
'.rhe parking requirements for. an RW zone are extremely deficient ! '.
and need to be revised. Several months ago I brought this up at I·
a council meeting and staff was to report back to us with a ! ·
11 stndy. 11 Living only a short distance from Bristol Cove, I · , ·;
don't feel the need of a study. The visible need is very evident.
RW zoning is the most congested zoning in the city. Height limit
is 45 feet. Front yard setback is 10 feet, rear year, 8 feet.
For an interior lot, side y~rd requirement is only 4 feet. You
only need 800 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit.
11 21. 22.110 Parking Requirement. Not withstanding anything to
the contrary in any other ordinance relating to parking require-
ments, -the parking requirement for th'= R-W zone shall be one
off-street parking· space provided for each dwelling unit in the
R-W zone. (ordinance 9189. sl (part}: Ord. 9060 s960). 11 If my
interpretation of the condo ordinance is correct, this substandard
parking is all that is required in this zone. (21.47.130 Devel-
opment standards, residential condominiums. (c) (2) P~rking.
Except for the special parking requirements in the R-W zone
district, parking shall· be provided as follows:-----)
Referring back to the 800 square feet per unit you can get a
maximum of 12 units on a 10,000 square foot lot. It is possible
to build a 4 story building with subterranean parking. The •
maximwn 12 units could be over 2000 square feet each. Yet the
parking requirements provide for only one off street parking
space per unit!
I estimate the area is only one-third developed. On one recent
weekend I counted over 50 automobiles parked on the street,
sidewalk and on the undeveloped lot·s. Each time a unit :j.s built,
you usually lose the former street parking in front of the unit.
They generally have their parking spaces at right angles to the
street, and you drive straight into the parking stall from the
street. As development occurs there will be less and less
street parking.
It is my observation that units in this zone have a much higher
visitor rate than the rest of the city, parti..mlarly in the
summer time, because of their location and ammenities, and lack of
off-street guest parking compounds the problem.
I
August-29, 1980 Page 2 Parking Requirements
With the sewer moritorium s~spended, I am recommending that we
.take immediate action to rectify this condition and require
development in the RW zone to have the same parking requirements
as elaborated under 21.44.130 parking spaces required:
( 5) USE -DWELLINGS
PARKIN9 SPACES REQUIRED -
(a) One, two-family or multiple parking spaces
required per dwelling unit:
' studio and one bedroom -
Two bedroom
Three bedroom and more
~w./4,-u~;':)
GIRARD W. ANEAR .)~
council Member
GWA:gb
. cc: city Manager
Planning Director
City Engineer
Council Act'ion:
9-23-8G Council directed staff to process the change •.
1.50 spaces/unit
1.75 spaces/unit
2.0 spaces/unit.
DATE:
to:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 1980
Frank Aleshire, City Manager
James Hagaman, Planning Director.-\?//
SUBJECT: REPORT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ANEAR REGARDING PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-W ZONE.
I have reviewed the report from Council Member Anear regarding parking
in the R-W Zone and concur with his concern and recommendation. The
present ordinance permits the parking requi·rements for apartments in the
R-W Z6ne to be 1/2, 3/4 or 1 space less per unit than other areas of the
c tty depending on the number of bed rooms. W i th res pee t to condom in i urns,
the present ordinance permits condos in the R-W Zone to have 1½ less
spaces per unit than other areas of the city (1 resident space and½
visitor space) •
Another aspect of the parking problem in the R-W zone is that the
present -ordinance allows tandem parking in the front setback area on
iots which are substandard in width (less than 50 feet). This compounds
the parking problem by allowing almost the entire frontage to be driveway
thus eliminating the possibility of any curbside parking. This provision
of the ordinance applies not only to areas zoned R~W but all substandard
width lots in the city.
Should the City Council decide to set to public hearing consideration of
an amendment to the Zoning Code to address these problems, the sections
of the Code affected would be as follows:
1) Section 21.22.110 -Parking requirements for R-W Zone.
2) Section 21.44. 130(8) -Permitting tandem parking within the
front yard setback for substandard width lots.
3) Section 21.47.130(2) -Parking requirements for condominiums.
The earliest available Planning Commission meeting for ,olscheduling
consideration of this item would bn November 12, 1980.
MH:ar
9/22/80