E.1.

48. Issue: Section 21.07.060F.15., Bicycle Parking Facilities and 71. As a follow up to Issues #48 and #71 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum, staff recommends several amendments to address development standards for bicycle parking. The amendments respond to recent information provided by the Bicycle Plan project team and comments provided by Commissioner John Weddleton. The first amendment would be a requirement that all bicycle parking be secure. Although the Department has always assumed and intended that any required bicycle parking space would include a lockable bike rack or secure enclosure, the 2007 public hearing draft does not specifically require this. Without some basic requirement for security, an applicant could legally comply with the minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces with just a paved area without a secure bicycle rack. Staff supports the addition of a basic provision to ensure that required bicycle parking spaces are secure and will not damage the bicycle. The second amendment would ensure adequate dimensions especially a minimum width for bicycle parking spaces. Some bicycle racks (with narrow tire slots that can damage bicycle wheels) do not contain enough space between bicycle slots. Not all the spaces can be used at once. This can result in a significant undersupply of usable bicycle spaces. In some cases these have also been reported to bend the tires, because only the tire is secured in place and there is no support for holding up the weight of the bike frame. A review of other communities’ bicycle parking provisions as well as information received through the bicycle parking team suggested that the code should provide a few dimensional standards for bicycle parking spaces just as it does for automobile parking spaces. Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the parking area for bicycles should be maintained on a similar basis as automobile parking, including during winter. Because basic year-round usability of bicycle parking is dependent on winter maintenance, staff does not object to such a provision. Lastly, Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the way subsection 21.07.090K expresses the minimum required amount of bicycle parking in terms of individual “bicycle parking spaces” may be confusing to readers. Most people are not used to thinking of bicycle parking in terms of a “bicycle parking space”. Staff acknowledges that at first this seems unusual or clunky in everyday conversation. However, the term “bicycle parking space” is almost universally applied among zoning ordinances. Eleven of twelve zoning ordinances reviewed by staff use this term. This term is sufficiently general to accommodate the variety of forms of bicycle parking, and is consistent with the required parking spaces for automobiles. Staff recommends providing a term and definition for “bicycle parking space” in chapter 14 such as “Bicycle Parking Space: An area and structure such as a bike rack or U bar or a facility such as a locker or portion of a lockable room, that is used for parking and securing a bicycle.” (Exact definition wording would be discussed in the Chapter 14 issue-response.) Staff Recommendation: Page 45, lines 13-19, amend to read as follows. Most of the underlined changes in subsection “a” were already been recommended in issue-response #35 of the August 28, 2008 Issue-Response memorandum:

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 35 15. Bicycle Parking Facilities a. Required b[B]icycle parking or a sign leading thereto shall be located in an area visible from the primary entrance area and shall be no farther from a primary entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space, not including designated accessible parking, carpool, or vanpool spaces.

b. Bicycle parking facilities shall provide security from theft and damage. A required bicycle parking space shall include a securely fixed structure that allows the bicycle wheel and frame to be locked to the facility, and that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to the bicycle, or shall be in a bicycle locker, lockable bicycle enclosure or lockable room.

c. A required bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of 6 feet long and 2 feet wide.

d. The surfacing of bicycle parking facilities shall be designed and maintained to be clear of mud and snow.

e. Bicycle parking shall not obstruct pedestrian walkways, building access, or use areas.

Page 84, line 34, amend to read, “No automobile or bicycle parking facility or loading facility shall be permitted in any required landscaping area.”

48. Issue: 21.07.090K., Bicycle Parking Spaces This is follow-up to issue 48 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum to address additional comments by several Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) members regarding the required number of bicycle parking spaces on page 94 of the Parking Section. The concern raised is that Title 21 should more strongly support bicycle parking spaces, to achieve a more ambitious but arguably attainable goal for a substantially greater percent of trips to be made by bicycles, especially in the urban centers. The threshold which triggers a requirement for secure bicycle parking should be much lower than in the Public Hearing Draft. Many multifamily and mixed-use developments that need bicycle parking will fall under the recommended threshold. There should almost always be the standard 3 or 4 secure bicycle parking spaces near an entrance of a non-residential or multifamily building. Other cities require this. Portland, OR, for example, requires secure bicycle parking for residential buildings of 4 or more units, 1 space per every 2 units for projects under 50 units, and 1 space per 4 units for projects with over 50 units. For these reasons, requirements such as the following are proposed: - Provide a minimum or 4 bicycle parking spaces for all multifamily projects with 4 or more dwellings.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 35 - Provide 1 bicycle parking space for every 2 dwelling units for developments of up to 50 units and 1 space per 4 dwelling units for developments that exceed 50 units. - Non-residential uses with fewer than 20 automobile parking spaces required should receive a bonus of some sort for voluntary installation of the standard 4-space secure bicycle rack. - Non-residential uses with 20 – 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide 4 secure bicycle parking spaces - Non-residential uses with more than 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide a number of bicycle parking spaces that is equal to 8 percent of the required number of automobile spaces.

Staff Response: Staff supports providing a bonus incentive for more bicycle parking. Refer to issue-response 87 below. However, the subsection that requires bicycle parking as recommended by the Public Hearing Draft is purposefully short, simple and conservative. Title 21 does not currently require bicycle parking, and the Title 21 Rewrite is a first step for the community to become familiar with a minimum bicycle parking requirement. A short, simple and conservative requirement provides a safe opportunity to become aware of any basic issues or problems that may arise during its initial implementation. The next step would be the preparation of the Bicycle Plan, currently in progress. The Bicycle Plan will provide a better opportunity to do a more comprehensive evaluation of the community’s bicycle parking needs and aspirations. It can document/demonstrate the need for bicycle parking for specific land uses. It may identify more ways to incentivize bike parking in the zoning ordinance. Once adopted by the municipal Assembly, it will provide goals, objectives and policy basis for more comprehensive bicycle parking standards. There are many zoning ordinances in large and small communities around the U.S. that have more comprehensive Bicycle Parking requirements than what Title 21 Rewrite proposes. Such ordinances result from a community involvement process and bicycle parking demand studies. They are also tailored to the needs and aspirations of specific communities. The Title 21 Rewrite does not provide that level of analysis for Anchorage. Until the Bicycle Plan is completed, Title 21 should remain conservative to avoid problems that can arise from unnecessarily onerous regulations. Information provided by the Bicycle Plan’s project team (see August 28 issue-response memo) seems to support such a phased approach. Pending the completion and implementation of the Bicycle Plan, staff recommends that the bicycle parking requirement in the Title 21 Rewrite be a simple starter provision. Upon further examination, it appears that even the draft provision on page 94, lines 6-9 of the public hearing draft contains an accessory requirement that may be too high for some small businesses. Specifically, it states that any development that partakes of a parking reduction must provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. For example, if a small establishment providing doggie day care gets a parking reduction from a total of six required spaces down to 4 required spaces through the use of two on-street curb parking spaces, it would have to also provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. Does a tiny use that involves delivery of large goods (such as an animal) and which parks fewer than 6 patrons at a one time really need 4 bicycle parking spaces? It is not

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 4 of 35 clear to staff, nor is there yet a guiding plan or policy basis to help decide. This kind of question is better left to the Bicycle Plan analysis, and in the meantime the public hearing draft provision should be simplified further. Staff Recommendation: Page, 94, lines 6-9, amend to read as follows: “All nonresidential, multifamily, and mixed-use dwelling developments with more than 40 parking spaces required in table 21.07-5 [,OR THAT USE A PARKING REDUCTION OR ALTERNATIVE IN SUBSECTION 21.07.090F.,] shall provide at least four bicycle parking spaces, or a number of bicycle parking spaces equal to three percent of the number of required automobile parking spaces, whichever is greater.”

66. Issue: 21.07.090G., Off-street Loading Requirements A member of the Planning and Zoning Commission submitted follow-up comments regarding the August 28 issue-response memorandum issue #66, which addressed the off-street loading section. The concern is that the purpose statements and requirements relative to loading berths are inadequate for strip mall type development, because there are typically multiple tenants in a row in one building. One purpose should be to keep loading and unloading activities away from the main parking, walking and primary customer entrance area. For a long strip mall, the back of the strip mall should providing loading berths for the entire length of the rear of the building accessible or near to each tenant space. It would be a good idea to reiterate or refer to the purpose statement objectives for loading areas in Section G. It is easy to lose site of the goals that appear 20 pages earlier, at the beginning of the Parking section. The draft loading berth requirement requires up to one 30’ loading berth for most strip mall developments containing multiple commercial tenant units. The requirement for one 30’ long “B” style loading berth is not enough. Where would it be located relative to the tenants distributed through the development? It seems as though a longer berth or a Type “C” loading berth looks more applicable and looks like it is more typical of strip malls. Table 21.07-08 only references berth types A and B. The reference to Type C seems buried in the narrative. To get the “Type C” berth back into play, add a new row to the table that shows in the first column “For Mixed-use Districts” then in the “Type” column put “One Type C berth may be substituted for one Type B’ or “B or C”. Staff Response: Both the current and recommended code require no more than one Type B 30’x10’ loading berth for most strip malls. This is because most every multi-tenant strip mall has less than 24,000 square feet of gross floor area, which is the size threshold above which both the current Title 21 and draft Title 21 Rewrite would require more than one 30’x10’ loading berth. The loading berth requirement is intended to allow flexibility for an owner of a multi-tenant building to decide how many loading berths above the minimum required number of berths the building really needs.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 5 of 35 Because of the size and configuration of a loading berth, a requirement for more berths specific to multi-tenant buildings could impact the area requirements and building costs for certain buildings. In many cases buildings are designed to be flexible so that the number of tenants may fluctuate over time. Some multi-tenant buildings have evolved into single-tenant buildings. The current requirement allows for this kind of flexibility. The proposed Title 21 Rewrite requirement is similar to that of other communities researched. In a handful of cities surveyed by staff no loading berth is required until a commercial use reaches somewhere between 7,000 and 20,000 sf in size, depending on the community. The public hearing draft Title 21 recommends increasing the size threshold from 7,000 in the current code to 12,000. Current practice in most codes surveyed appears to support an increase, however staff would not object to reducing the proposed threshold size for requiring a loading berth for commercial establishments from 12,000 to 10,000 sf gfa, to take a middle-of-the-road practice. The Title 21 Rewrite carries forward the current code’s organizational placement of the Type C exception for special districts. The Type C berth provision is established in the paragraph prior to the main table, not in the table itself. Adding a row to the table would be awkward because its columns would not mean the same thing as the columns above it. Title 21 currently makes the Type C loading berth available as a substitute for the Type B loading berth specifically for the B-2A, B-2B and B-2C districts because alleys are available and typically the use across the alley is not a lower density neighborhood that would be impacted by the use of the alley as part of a loading berth. The draft Title 21 Rewrite had replaced the reference to the B-2 districts with mixed-use districts. Staff recommends bringing back a reference to the B-2 districts pending completion of the Downtown development code project, and limiting Type C availability in mixed-use districts to only those alleys not shared with low-to-medium density residential uses. Staff Recommendation: Table 21.07-8, page 83, amend the requirement for “All commercial establishments not otherwise specified” so that the Aggregate Gross Floor Area at which one Type B berth is required is reduced from 12,000 to 10,000. Page 82, lines 30-31, amend as follows: “in any DT district, or in any mixed-use district where an alley is available that is not shared with any adjacent R-1, R-1A, R-2A, R-2D, R-2F, R-2M or R-3 zoned residential lots, one type C berth may be substituted for one type B berth.”

70. Issue: 21.07.090H.12., Parking Facility Maintenance This is a follow up to issue #70 raised in the August 28, 2008 Issue-Response memorandum. The original comment was that it is not the place of the zoning ordinance to request a specific type of apparatus for cleaning a parking lot. The comment continued that this requirement would be especially troublesome for parking garages adjacent to residential uses, such as the parking garage in Midtown off of C Street south of Benson. Staff Response: The sweeping provision is based on the Municipality’s manual entitled “Anchorage Parking Lots 2002: Best Management Practices Guidance”, which is available at http://wms.geonorth.com/library/Documents/Reports/BMP_Guidance/02_Pkglot_doc.pdf. The

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 6 of 35 design elements and maintenance practices described in the manual address the impacts of rainfall and snowmelt runoff from parking lots on water quality in urbanized areas of the Municipality. The reason is that parking lots are among the most pernicious land uses in any watershed. Parking lots occupy somewhere between 10% - 50% of the urban land surface. Parking lots collect and accumulate pollutants that are applied for traction on snow and ice and pollutants that leak, drip or wear off automobiles. The recommended maintenance procedures in the manual help minimize the discharge of storm water-borne pollutants to reduce downstream impacts. Anchorage area studies have shown that regular sweeping can remove 50 percent and more of the sediment on parking lot surfaces (MOA, WMP, 2002). Sweeping reduces the sediment available to be washed away with storm water, reduces dust and enhances air quality. The recommended best practice for maintaining paved lots is to clean the lot regularly using a sequence of a mechanical sweeper followed by either a vacuum sweeper or a regenerative air sweeper. This will allow the removal of larger particles first by the mechanical sweeper, then the removal of finer particles, resulting in more efficient operation by each type of sweeper. The manual recommends that this sweeping sequence occur at a minimum two times per year, once before May 15 or as snowmelt conditions permit and once between August 15 and October 15, with the last sweep as close to the first snowfall as can be predicted. This last sweep will reduce the amount of sediment available for runoff in the following spring breakup. More frequent sweeping is recommended for lots that have high usage or high particulate buildup. The draft provisions on page 90, lines 10-15, reflect the recommendations of the manual and carry forward its flexibility to accommodate a variety of appropriate sweeper technologies as these technologies evolve. The draft code also raises the threshold size for parking lots that must comply to approximately three to four times the manual’s recommended threshold size of 2,000 square feet. However, the draft code provision’s use of the word “tandem” seems to add more a technical, specific quality to the language than intended, and more flexibility should be provided relative to the dates when spring sweeping should occur. Staff Recommendation: Page 90, lines 10-15, amend as follows: “Paved surface parking lots with 20 or more spaces shall be swept using a sequence of a mechanical sweeper followed by either a vacuum sweeper or regenerative air sweeper [TANDEM MECHANICAL/VACUUM OR MECHANICAL/REGENERATIVE AIR SWEEPERS, BROOMS], or other sweepers approved by the municipal engineer[. SUCH PARKING LOTS SHALL BE SWEPT] two times annually at a minimum, including once following spring melt and prior to May 15 or as snowmelt conditions permit, and once between August 15 and October 15. Such parking lots shall not be cleaned using air blowers or by water producing [RUN-OFF] hosing or flushing.”

75. Issue: Section 21.07.090A.2., Off-street Parking and Loading, Purpose Objective 2 of the main purpose statement for section 21.07.090 (page 63, lines 10-11) is intended to address internal design and layout of a parking and loading facility. It establishes the basis for parking lot layout, circulation and dimensional standards to ensure safe and

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 7 of 35 efficient vehicle circulation and avoidance of vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-pedestrian conflicts on the lot. However, as drafted, the latter part of the sentence becomes too generalized for this purpose, and instead overlaps with objectives five and six below it, which address pedestrian oriented urban development more in general. The draft provision does not but should cover loading areas. The first phrase of the sentence implies that the parking section addresses or ensures pedestrian circulation, which it does not (21.07.060E and F do this). A clearer, more specific focus on safe and orderly internal vehicular circulation in objective 2 would strengthen the basis for subsections H.9 and H.10 of the Parking section in particular. Staff recommends clarifying the focus of this objective on one of the primary functions of the parking section, which is parking lot internal layout design and vehicle circulation. Staff Recommendation: Page 63, lines 10-11, change as follows: “Provide for safe and orderly [VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN] circulation and parking [SAFETY] in parking and loading facilities [AREAS], and minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles [CREATE A SAFE AND MORE PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT];”

76. Issue: Section 21.07.090B.4, Applicability The second sentence in subsection B.4, lines 10-12, raises several concerns. First, provisions like this related to management and control of parking facilities should be located in subsection B.3, “Regulation of Parking Space Use”. Secondly, there is a concern from several agencies that an outright prohibition against parking charges would be a step back away from the direction of emerging best practices nationally for parking lot management and pricing, such as unbundling the cost of parking from housing rent. There is an emerging awareness that free parking subsidizes single-occupancy vehicle driving at a cost to other community goals and values. According to staff research of several dozen other ordinances, most cities do not seem to have an outright prohibition written into the zoning ordinance. An outright prohibition would also be likely to create nonconformities, although there is no formal research into this issue. However, parking charges are limited already in the current code, and removal of the prohibition against charges could lead to spillover of parking onto adjacent streets and properties. Staff is researching this issue and may come forward with amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

77. Issue: Section 21.07.090C.3, Applicability, Area Measurements The proposed exemption for enclosed mechanical equipment “above the general roof level” is unclear and after further research it is evident that it would be a step in the opposite direction from recommended best practice for measuring parking demand. The exemption introduces a lack of clarity and precision into the calculation of parking requirements. The exemption was originally intended to mean mechanical penthouses or even rooms that are within the building envelope but in a small appurtenance-like feature above the

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 8 of 35 top story of the main building form. However, as written it can be interpreted to exempt only mechanical equipment on top of the roof and therefore outside of the building floor area, which is already excluded from the gross floor area calculation. Widely accepted best practice is to simply avoid exemptions from the calculation of gross floor area for determining the parking requirement. Research regarding how floor area is calculated when measuring parking demand or establishing parking requirements indicates that piecemeal elements of a building such as storage space and mechanical floor area are not typically set aside. Staff review of two dozen parking ordinances, ITE studies and parking literature instead indicates that common best practice is to base the minimum number of off-street parking spaces simply on gross floor area. The requirement is kept simpler and more precise, improving the efficiency and ease of administration, and the timeliness of review approvals. The parking requirements of most every city, including Anchorage are based on parking demand studies reported by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), other parking studies available nationally, as well as local parking surveys. These parking demand studies usually measure parking demand relative to the entire gross floor area (GFA) of buildings. The studies do not subtract the floor area of mechanical rooms, storage areas, elevator shafts, stairwells, etc. from the calculation of gross floor area when measuring parking demand rates. Parking requirements which are based on studies of parking demand per unit of GFA therefore have a built-in allowance for mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, hallways, bathrooms, stairwells, storage rooms and similar rooms that typically fall with a building’s GFA. Once a parking requirement begins to exempt certain kinds of mechanical or storage areas, there becomes room for difference in interpretation between administrator and applicant as to whether this or that storage area, closet, mechanical room, computer room, and most any other accessory space in the building should be exempted. Why one mechanical space and not another? For example, the exemption for rooftop mechanical penthouses was in part originally intended to encourage the screening of unsightly rooftop HVAC units. But why exempt mechanical penthouse and not basement mechanical rooms? Basement mechanical rooms have even less visual impact. And why not exempt mechanical rooms embedded elsewhere in the building—these also have less external visual impact than rooftop HVAC units. If an interior mechanical room is exempted, can the exemption include an adjacent storage room? Or a storage space combined with the mechanical room? Why not also exempt the adjacent elevator shaft? Once the calculation is based on net rather than gross floor area, it becomes a slippery slope full of opportunities for differences in viewpoint as to what should and should not be exempted. Shifting from net rather than gross floor area does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the parking requirement either. Other more difficult-to-anticipate characteristics besides mechanical room and storage space can have a more substantial effect on parking demand. The success or popularity of an individual business, or the extent to which an office use serves visiting customers (and therefore attracts more parking) can substantially influence parking demand. The basic parking requirement does not account for these factors any more than it does for mechanical room space. However, the simple GFA based system does allow the requirement to remain true to average (mean) parking demand relative to building size. Staff recommends a simple gross floor area based requirement because it is relatively precise and easy to administer and adhere to. It already incorporates a built-in exemption for low-use

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 9 of 35 portions of a building such as the mechanical room, because it is based on studies that have measured parking demand relative to gross floor area (GFA) including these spaces. Staff Recommendation: Page 64, lines 32-34, amend the second sentence as follows: “For the purposes of this section, all gross floor area shall be counted in such measurement, except for f[F]loor area dedicated for parking spaces, driveways, drive aisles or[,] loading areas[,OR ENCLOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED ABOVE THE GENERAL ROOF LEVEL SHALL NOT BE COUNTED IN SUCH MEASUREMENT].”

78. Issue: 21.07.090C.5.c, Areas that Count Toward Minimum but not Maximum Parking Requirements A member of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends adding motorcycle and motor scooter parking to the list of types of parking spaces that count toward the minimum number of required parking spaces. This would also exempt motorcycle parking spaces from being counted toward a maximum parking requirement. The benefit to the community could be more efficient use of land and encouragement for fuel- and space-efficient vehicles. Staff Response: Adding motorcycle/motor scooter parking spaces to the list of parking types that can be used to count toward the minimum required number of automobile parking spaces would open up a potential loophole. It would allow an applicant to use small motorcycle spaces to replace any number of required automobile spaces. An owner who wants to overbuild a site could simply meet the parking requirement in large part through providing many motorcycle-sized parking spaces. An approach more consistent with other parking alternatives such as on-street parking, tandem parking and small (formerly compact) parking spaces would be to establish motorcycle parking spaces as a kind of parking reduction / alternative in subsection F, and then establish a limit on the percentage of the required number of automobile parking spaces that can be replaced by motorcycle spaces. Most zoning ordinances reviewed by staff do not seem to address motorcycle parking stalls. The rate of motorcycle and scooter use may be lower in Anchorage due to climatic conditions, particularly in winter. The Public Hearing Draft Title 21 already substantially lowers the parking requirements for many uses. It also provides a much longer and more substantial list of available parking reductions. In addition, this memorandum recommends the addition of more parking reductions for bicycle parking spaces and district parking. Staff believes that the Title 21 Rewrite will result in major decreases in required parking, with all the attendant benefits to property owners and the community. Staff recommends going forward at this time with the innovations and level of sophistication already proposed. The Title 21 Rewrite is structured to be able to accommodate future amendments. Staff Recommendation: No change.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 10 of 35 79. Issue: Section 21.07.090E.2., Off-street Parking Requirements, Minimum of Three Parking Spaces Based on further research staff recommends several minor clarifications and substantive improvements to this provision. First, the list of uses exempted from the minimum requirement of three spaces is recommended to be consolidated into one sentence at the end of the paragraph. The exemption for residential uses should be limited to household uses (Group living uses are more institutional and so should be required to provide at least three spaces). The list of exempted uses should include utility substations, community gardens and parks. These kinds of uses are unlikely to demand parking when very small in size, and are exempted in communities with this type of provision (e.g., Minneapolis, MN). Staff also recommends that the draft provision no longer exempt food and beverage kiosks that are exclusively for drive-through customers. Such exemption contradicts the original purpose of the minimum requirement of three spaces, which was to address issues with beverage kiosks. Kiosks typically have 1-2 employees at one time and occasionally serve customers who park. Some kiosks have added moveable outdoor seating, thereby attracting customer parking. Likewise, fueling stations need parking for attendants. Fueling stations and beverage kiosks have very low GFA and could be underparked if not for the minimum requirement of three spaces. Staff recommends removing the provision requiring that the three spaces must be signed for customer, visitor or employee parking. As long as three spaces are provided, and one is signed for accessible van use only, the basic intent of the minimum parking requirement should be satisfied without having to sign employee versus guest parking. Several other technical edits are suggested by staff to improve clarity. Staff Recommendation: Page 66, lines 4-9, amend as follows: “Where a [NONRESIDENTIAL] use is required to provide off-street parking and the amount specified in table 21.07-5 would result in [REQUIREMENT IS] fewer than three spaces being required for the use, the use shall [BE REQUIRED TO] provide at least three parking spaces including [ONE CUSTOMER OR VISITOR PARKING SPACE, ONE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACE, AND] one van-accessible parking space pursuant to section 21.07.090J. [FUELING STATIONS AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE KIOSKS THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR DRIVE-THROUGH CUSTOMERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.] Where there are multiple uses located on a site, the uses may share the accessible space as long as the requirements of section 21.07.090J.1 are met. Parking reductions in section 21.07.090F shall also comply with this subsection E.2.. The minimum of three parking spaces shall not apply to residential household living uses, community gardens, parks and open space or utility substations.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 11 of 35

80. Issue: 21.07.090E.4.b., Maximum Number of Spaces Permitted The proposed limit to the allowed number of parking spaces could create unintended problems for industrial uses. The minimum parking requirement for manufacturing and warehouse uses is substantially lower in the Title 21 Rewrite public hearing draft than in current code. The lower requirements are based primarily on research of ITE data and comparable cities’ codes. Actual parking demand is likely to vary substantially from one industrial establishment to the next. For example, the degree to which an industrial process is automated will substantially impact the number of employees needed. In other cases, the establishment may have a workday shift change in which the parking demand for different employee shifts overlaps. The proposed maximum number of parking spaces arose from issues with retail establishments. Retail uses such as big box stores are most likely to over-park a site plan relative to actual parking demand data. Industrial uses are less dependent on substantial volume of customer traffic and therefore are less likely to invest in substantial automobile parking. Often industrial uses need more paved space for tractor-trailer storage and loading than for car parking. For these reasons, staff believes that a parking maximum applied to industrial uses may not substantially reduce the amount of excess paved areas in the community. It may instead create problems for industrial establishments that may try to expand or locate in Anchorage, or generate spillover of parked vehicles on neighboring streets or properties. Staff Recommendation: Page 73, lines 25-26, amend as follows: “For any use categorized as a Public/Institutional or[,] Commercial [OR INDUSTRIAL] use in table 21.05-1 or table 21.05- 2, Tables of Allowed Uses, the maximum number of off-street vehicle parking spaces shall be as established in table 21.07-6 below.”

81. Issue: 21.07.090E.4.b., Table 21.070-6, Maximum Number of Allowed Parking Spaces The provision in Note 2 in Table 21.07-6 is in need of testing on representative site plan examples for effectiveness in meeting the objective and its practicality for site plans. Staff believes that site testing should be conducted as part of the review of the provisions in 21.07.120 for large establishments. Based on testing, staff may come forward with proposed amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

82. Issue: 21.07.090F.3.a., 3.b and 3.c, Qualifying Site Development The site enhancements on page 75 for eligibility for parking reductions are important because they help ensure that a proposed site plan will compensate for a reduction in the parking requirement, through improvements related to pedestrian connectivity. However it has become evident that several of the prerequisite site enhancements may be prohibitive for existing buildings. In particular, subsections 3.b and 3.c could make it difficult for many existing buildings to use parking reductions with potential expansions or changes in use. Many existing properties in areas intended for infill and redevelopment in mixed-use districts or transit corridors might be blocked from participating in shared parking agreements,

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 12 of 35 off-site parking agreements or district parking. If the bar is set too high to be eligible for a parking reduction, it could dampen or dissuade reinvestment, infill and efficient use of land in older, existing business districts—thereby conflicting with part of the purpose for parking reductions. Subsection 3.b, Separated Walkway to the Street, would require a street-to-building walkway that does not cross any parking lot or driveway. This may be impossible for some pre-existing buildings that are set back from the street behind parking areas. In many cases even if the existing building is expanded, any direct walkway to the street would still have to cross a vehicle area or drive aisle to get to it. The walkway prerequisite would be more practical if it simply required a walkway meeting the requirements of 21.07.060, allowing for crossings. Subsection 3.c, Parking Facility Location, would restrict the amount of the front area of the lot between the building and the street that could be used for parking. This may be an impractical retrofit for some pre-existing sites in which the building is set back and parking facility already entirely in the front. The provision is more suited for proposed new buildings than for existing buildings. Relaxing these two prerequisites allows more physical improvements and makes the lower ratio of parking spaces available to existing properties in mixed-use/infill/redevelopment areas. Subsection 3.a., which requires street-oriented windows, would be inappropriate and difficult for most industrial, transportation and utility uses. In addition, parking alternatives listed in subsection F, including 12. Land Banking (page 77), 19. Stacked and Tandem Parking and 20. Smaller [COMPACT] Parking Spaces for Low Turnover Uses (page 81) for which at least some of the qualifying site development criteria may not be appropriate. For example, the use of tandem or small parking stalls does not necessarily reduce parking demand or increase the need for stronger pedestrian connections. The following changes would add flexibility and make it more practical to utilize the available parking reductions to reinvest in, reuse or expand existing buildings. Staff Recommendation: Page 75, line 34, add: “The qualifying site criteria for parking reductions and alternatives shall not be required for the following parking reductions and alternatives: land banking (F.12), stacked and tandem parking (F.19), or smaller parking spaces for low-turnover uses (F.20).” Page 75, line 40, add the following last sentence: “Industrial uses, Public Safety Facilities, Transportation Facilities and Utility Facilities are exempt from the qualifying site development criteria.” Page 75 line 41 through page 76 line 7, amend as follows: b. [SEPARATED] Walkway to the Street A walkway meeting the requirements of section 21.07.060 [NOT ROUTED THROUGH A PARKING FACILITY OR CROSSED BY A DRIVEWAY] shall connect at least one primary entrance to a street.

c. Parking Facility Location For buildings constructed after [effective date], p[P]arking facilities including

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 13 of 35 driveways shall comprise no more than one-third of the area between the street property line and the street facing building elevation, and garage doors shall comprise no more than one-third of the length of the street facing building elevation. These requirements apply to no more than two street frontages.

d. Private Open Space For developments that are required to provide private open space, a[A]n additional 40 square feet of private open space that meets the requirements of subsection 21.07.030 shall be provided for each reduction of one parking space. This shall be common private open space in multifamily uses.

83. Issue: 21.07.090F.9.b, Rideshare Programs, Vanpool Participation in municipal rideshare van pool programs can yield an applicant substantial reductions in the number of required parking spaces. The code should clarify that the traffic engineer has the authority to ensure that when an employer uses a van pool program to reduce the required number of spaces, the van pool passenger loading zone is provided to maximize convenience, safety and usage of the service. The draft code does so for carpool parking spaces in 21.07.090F.9.a. Staff Recommendation: Page 77, line 19, add the following sentence: “The traffic engineer may require a safe and convenient designated vanpool passenger loading zone.”

84. Issue: Section 21.07.090F.16.e, Shared Parking, Pedestrian Connection The draft code would allow shared parking facilities serving a use to be located off-site, and in certain situations across a street. Users would need a walkway that crosses a street at an intersection. As with the provisions for Off-site Parking in 21.07.090F.17, which state that “the traffic engineer may require pedestrian crossing improvements to enhance pedestrian safety or mobility to and from the off-site parking”, the shared parking facility section should ensure that any intersection used to connect the use to an approved shared parking facility is safe and convenient. Staff Recommendation: Page 79, line 21, add the following sentence: “The traffic engineer may require pedestrian street crossing improvements.”

85. Issue: Section 21.07.090F.17.b, Off-site Parking, Location A Planning and Zoning Commission member has raised a question regarding inconsistencies between shared parking and off-site parking requirements for maximum allowable distance between the parking facility and the use(s) served. Why is there a maximum distance of 600 feet for off-street parking (page 80 line 28) and 800 feet for shared parking (page 79 line 15)? Staff Response: The 800 foot distance for shared parking facilities is the current shared

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 14 of 35 parking requirement for non-residential uses in Title 21 21.45.080X.3.c. Its basis is documentation in the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Manual that level-of-service conditions for walking distances to parking are generally no longer good beyond 800 feet. Some cities such as Seattle allow the distance to be up to 800 feet. However, other studies and example codes support allowing up to only 500 or 600 feet distance from the shared parking facility to the use served. For these reasons, the current requirement in 21.45.080X.3.c for residential uses is 500 feet. The draft Title 21 Rewrite shared parking provision carries forward the current provision because it was researched and adopted relatively recently. The 600 foot distance for off-site parking facilities originates from the June 2004 public review draft Title 21 Rewrite, which was prepared by the consultant. Staff recommends amending the proposed off-street parking facilities distance requirement to be consistent with the recently adopted shared parking distance requirement carried forward in the Title 21 Rewrite. Staff Recommendation: Page 80, lines 28-29, amend the first sentence as follows:

“The maximum distance between off-site parking spaces and the use(s) served shall be the same as provided in 21.07.090F.16.d for shared parking spaces [NO OFF-SITE PARKING SPACE MAY BE LOCATED MORE THAN 600 FEET FROM A PRIMARY ENTRANCE] (measured along the shortest legal pedestrian route).”

86. Issue: Section 21.07.090F, Parking Reductions and Alternatives, District Parking The 2006 public review draft #2 of the Title 21 Rewrite had carried forward (in modified form) a provision from existing code allowing for a parking reduction if the subject property is in a municipal parking district with public parking available. That provision was not carried forward into the 2007 public hearing draft because of a belief that the Title 21 Rewrite would be completed long before the municipality would get involved in providing public parking (outside of Downtown) to users of multiple establishments within a defined district. However, the possibility of public parking district in the near term has arisen with the Spenard Road reconstruction project. The project is likely to include acquisition of several properties by the Municipality for public parking that would serve a defined area, or “parking district”. Given the timing of this project, staff recommends providing an enabling provision now for public parking, so that the traffic engineer has the flexibility to grant case by case parking reductions to properties. The existence of nearby district parking should not in and of itself make a use eligible for an unlimited parking reduction. The extent of the parking reduction to be allowed must depend on factors such as the number of district parking spaces available and the number of other establishments in the vicinity that may also wish to use the facility. For this reason, staff recommends that there be general guidelines for evaluating a proposed parking reduction due to district parking.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 15 of 35 Staff Recommendation: Page 81, following line 3, add a new subsection called “District Parking” as follows, and then renumber all subsequent parking reduction subsections:

18. District Parking The traffic engineer may reduce the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for uses within the boundaries of a municipally recognized public parking district that provides off-site parking facilities to serve an area. To determine eligibility for this reduction or the size of the reduction to be allowed, the traffic engineer shall consider factors such as:

a. Peak hours of use and turnover rate;

b. The ability of the use to meet the parking requirement through other means;

c. The availability of spaces in the nearby district parking facility;

d. The relative distance to the use from the district parking facility; and

e. Measures provided by the applicant to ensure employee and patron use of the district parking facility.

87. Issue: Section 21.07.090F, Parking Reductions and Alternatives, Bicycle Parking A Planning and Zoning Commissioner has recommended that there should be accommodation for increased bicycle use in the summer, arguing that when space for bikes is not available, they end up clogging sidewalks and building entrances for certain uses. Presumably, as more bikes are ridden, the need for car parking drops. To accommodate and encourage increased bike use, there could be a provision to allow use of required parking spaces as needed to accommodate bicycle parking needs beyond the minimum bicycle parking requirement. The Commissioner recommends adding language to the effect that when the minimum number of bicycle spaces is inadequate for the number of bicycles parked, required parking spaces may be used for bicycle parking, if the space is protected with bollards or similar physical separation. Each standard parking space can accommodate up to six (6) bicycle parking spaces. Staff Response: The minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces is a simple, conservative, one-size-fits all requirement. It is not calibrated by type of use, although different uses are likely to have different requirements. As a result, it is most likely that the Title 21 standard, which is basically an interim standard pending completion of the Bicycle Plan, will not ensure in all cases that the required number of bicycle spaces can accommodate all bicycles that may be parked on a site (See issue 48 on pages 3-4 above). By contrast, the automobile parking requirement is calibrated by use type, based on local and/or national parking demand data. It is not designed to leave a lot of excess automobile parking spaces that can be allocated to bicycles or other small vehicle without making it more difficult to park a car. For this reason, while staff does not have a strong objection to a parking reduction for providing bicycle spaces, there should be (a) strict limits as to the number or

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 16 of 35 percentage of automobile spaces that can be changed over and (b) a guaranteed minimum number of secure bicycle parking spaces to replace each automobile space. Staff also recommends that such a provision also be located within the Parking Reductions and Alternatives section, to provide stronger safeguards that the owner/participant will meet the generally applicable requirements for eligibility for a parking reduction. In addition, bicycle parking that replaces the required automobile parking should be usable and therefore should adhere to the minimum dimensional and security standards for bicycle parking spaces in 21.07.060F.15 (see issue 48/71 above). Staff Recommendation: Page 81, following line 39, add a new subsection called “Bicycle Parking” as follows:

23. Bicycle Parking A use is eligible to permanently or seasonally substitute bicycle parking spaces for up to a maximum of five percent of the minimum number of required parking spaces. Each automobile parking space shall be replaced by at least six bicycle parking spaces not required by this title. Bicycle parking spaces shall comply with the standards of 21.07.060F.15 and be separated from motor vehicle areas by bollards or other physical buffer approved by the traffic engineer.

88. Issue: Section 21.07.090F.19.a, Stacked and Tandem Parking, Nonresidential Uses A provision should be added that ensures that where an establishment uses a valet service to gain a parking reduction, that the establishment shall make this service conspicuous and well- known to its customers.

Staff Recommendation: Page 81, line 20, add the following sentence: “Availability of this service shall be conspicuously posted inside and outside the primary entrance.”

89. Issue: Section 21.07.090H.1., Parking and Loading Facility Design Standards, Purpose The general purpose lacks a statement that communicates the objective for compatibility of parking area design, location and traffic circulation patterns with the rest of the development, and with surrounding properties, streets, and neighborhood. Many of the provisions in the subsections which follow fall at least in part into this general purpose. It is a common practice to state this kind of objective in parking ordinances, and is recommended here. Staff Recommendation: page 84, lines 23-24, add a new second sentence as follows: “The parking and loading facility design standards promote vehicle areas which are safe, efficient, convenient, and attractive for motorists and pedestrians. These design standards also enhance the compatibility of parking and loading facilities with their surroundings.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 17 of 35 90. Issue: Section 21.07.090H.3, H.6, H.7.b and H.14.d., clarifying the relationship between parking space vehicle overhang into landscaping and walkways. The public hearing draft does not provide clear direction regarding the extent to which vehicles may overhang into landscaping and walkways. Staff recommends amending portions of the Off-street Parking and Loading section to clarify that the vehicle overhang portion of a parking stall may not count toward the minimum planting bed width of required landscaping. The Off-street Parking subsection 21.07.090H.3 states on page 84 that “No parking shall be permitted in any required landscaping area.” Meanwhile, subsection H.14.d on page 91 states that “The overhang portion of the parking stall depth as defined in table 21.07-9, Parking Angle, Stall, and Aisle Dimensions, may be landscaped with a low growth, hardy plant material in lieu of paving, allowing a bumper overhang while maintaining the required parking dimensions.” However it is still not clear whether the vehicle overhang allowance portion of the parking stall, if landscaped, can count as part of the width of a required planting bed. To clarify the overall direction, staff will be bringing forward a proposed amendment to Section 21.07.080, Landscaping and Screening, which states: “Vehicle overhang shall not extend into the minimum required planting bed width.” This change still does not provide the specific measurement of vehicle overhang. It is up to the Parking section to link this to the “overhang allowance” dimension in Table 21.07-9, and to establish a centrally located provision and illustration showing the spatial, dimensional relationship between vehicle overhang allowance and abutting landscaping and walkways. Toward this end, staff recommends the following changes. Staff Recommendation: Page 84, line 34, amend as follows: “No parking shall be permitted in any required landscaping area. No vehicle overhang allowance area, as measured in Table 21.07-9, may extend into the minimum required planting bed width of required landscaping. See figure X below.” Page 84, after line 34, add an illustration depicting the spatial relationship between the overhang allowance portion of a parking space and the required minimum width of abutting required landscaping and walkways. Planning staff will come forward with an illustration. Page 84, lines 43-44, amend as follows: “Parking and loading facilities shall comply with the provisions of subsection 21.07.00E., Pedestrian Facilities. No vehicle overhang allowance area, as measured in Table 21.07-9, may extend into the minimum required dimension of required walkways, pedestrian areas or private open space. See figure X above.” Page 91, lines 2-5, amend as follows: “The vehicle overhang allowance portion of the parking space [STALL] depth, as measured [DEFINED] in Table 21.07-9 [PARKING ANGLE, STALL, AND AISLE DIMENSIONS,] and illustrated in figures Y and Z following the table, may be landscaped with a low-growth, hardy plant material in lieu of paving, allowing a bumper overhang while maintaining the required parking dimensions. Landscaped overhang allowance areas may be contiguous with required landscaping but shall not be counted toward the minimum required planting bed width.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 18 of 35 91. Issue: Section 21.07.090H.8.b, Location of Parking Facilities within a Site, Multifamily Development This provision is important for improving the neighborhood compatibility of multifamily development, which has in some cases impacted neighborhood streetscape character with parking lots, pavement and many vehicles in what would have otherwise been a landscaped front yard. Variations of this kind of provision regarding multifamily development appear in zoning ordinances around the country. However, testing of representative site examples and further research of this type of provision is recommended to ensure its effectiveness and practicality for local development. The provision’s relationship to similar provisions in the multifamily district specific standards in 21.04 and the multifamily standards of 21.07.100 is also being reviewed. Staff may come forward with proposed amendments based on further research and testing. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

92. Issue: 21.07.090H.9.b., Circulation Patterns The draft standards for vehicle circulation lack a basic, introductory provision establishing that parking facility circulation patterns shall follow accepted traffic engineering standards for safety and efficiency. Such provision can ensure adherence to widely-accepted traffic engineering standards in facility layout established by national organizations such as the ITE and ULI. Its overall directive would also provide a lead-in to the more issue-specific circulation language to follow. The reference to the ITE, ULI and municipal Driveway Standards will also inform applicants of the primary sources forming the basis for municipal traffic engineer expectations. Staff Recommendation: Page 85, line 40, add a new first sentence as follows: “Internal circulation patterns and the location and traffic direction of all access drives and queuing lanes shall be designed and maintained in accordance with the municipal driveway standards currently established by the traffic engineer, and with accepted principles of traffic engineering and safety, per the traffic engineer’s review based on the current manuals of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute, and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”

93. Issue: 21.07.090H.9.c., Parking Spaces Along Main Circulation Drives (Page 86, lines 1-6) As noted by a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the draft provision is not clear as to when it would apply. It does not define what is or is not a “primary circulation driveway”. Its intent is to avoid traffic-parking conflicts on major access drives into large developments with multiple lots or businesses, such as Takahtnu Commons or the entry driveway shared by Wal-Mart and Dimond Center off of Old Seward Highway. The provision is also potentially too restrictive in its outright prohibition against a parking stall angle of 90 degrees. The last phrase provides for more flexibility to apply a variety of potential on-street curb-style parking angles depending on the situation, and is recommended to form the basis of a provision revised for brevity, clarity and flexibility.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 19 of 35 Staff Recommendation: Page 86, lines 1-6, amend as follows: c. Parking Spaces Along Major Site Entrance [MAIN CIRCULATION] Drives [PARALLEL PARKING STALLS ALONG A PRIMARY CIRCULATION DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES AS AN ENTRY OR EXIT FOR A PARKING LOT SHALL NOT HAVE A PARKING STALL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES.] The provision, location, design and dimensions of parking spaces on a major access [PRIMARY CIRCULATION] driveway [WITH PARKING STALLS] that [ALSO] serves as an entry or exit for a large establishment with multiple lots, tracts or businesses [SURROUNDING PARKING LOT] shall conform to municipal standards for [LOCAL STREETS WITH] on-street parking and be subject to review and approval by the traffic engineer.

94. Issue: 21.07.090H.9.g., Parking and Maneuvering Subsection 9.g., Parking and Maneuvering is intended to be a central provision addressing parking lot internal layout, circulation and parking space access. However it has become evident that the content as drafted is not really an internal layout design provision. The language does not adequately address access to parking spaces and maneuvering aisles within the internal layout design of off-street parking facilities. It only establishes that these elements shall be on “private property”, as opposed to adjacent streets, which is actually redundant to 21.07.090E.5. Its exemption for single-family homes is worded so that required parking for a home does not need to be on the property, although the intent is really only specific to backing out maneuvering room. The provision does not cover the basic need for each parking space to have direct access to a drive aisle—that principle seems to be covered down in subsection 9.j.i., using existing, somewhat difficult to understand language from current code. A survey of two dozen other cities’ parking ordinances has confirmed that the common practice is to establish access to individual parking spaces as a basic requirement in the zoning ordinance—except where the traffic engineer approves tandem parking. It is also common practice for zoning ordinances to express that all vehicles must be able to enter the abutting street in forward motion. These are basic traffic engineering standards that reflect current municipal practice in reviews. However, the current Title 21 language carried forward in the 2007 public hearing draft does not seem to state both of them as clearly as other ordinances do. Staff recommends changing subsection f to more clearly and systematically address the basics of internal access and circulation.

Staff Recommendation: Page 86, lines 18-21, amend as follows:

f. Parking and Maneuvering All [PARKING SPACES] access aisles, driveways and vehicle maneuvering areas required by this section [, EXCEPT THOSE THAT SERVE SINGLE-FAMILY AND

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 20 of 35 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES,] shall be located entirely on [PRIVATE] property (not in the right-of-way) unless specifically provided otherwise by this section.

i. Access to Parking Spaces To ensure safe and efficient vehicular access to parking spaces, each required off-street parking space shall open directly on an aisle or driveway of such width and design as provided in table 21.07-9 and the illustrations that follow the table. Adequate ingress and egress to each parking space shall be provided without backing more than 25 feet.

ii. Maneuvering Area Off-street parking facilities shall be designed with sufficient maneuvering room so that all maneuvers associated with parking shall occur in the off-street parking facility, and that all vehicles enter the abutting street in a forward motion.

iii. Single- and Two-family Dwellings Exempted Single- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be exempted from this subsection f.

Page 86, lines 33-34, delete subsection j.ii. because its content is recommended to be incorporated into new item f.i above.

95. Issue: 21.07.090H.9.e, Relationship to Adjacent Properties and Parking Lots Currently the Municipality encourages but does not require joint driveway access between abutting properties. When owners of abutting properties propose a joint access driveway to meet municipal driveway standards, the Municipality typically requires a joint access agreement running with the land, similar to a shared parking agreement. Because joint access driveways reduce traffic conflicts, use land efficiently and improve pedestrian safety, staff recommends expressing existing municipal practices encouraging it and explaining how it is to be done. The subsection should also be moved downward to follow the more basic on-site circulation, parking access and maneuvering provisions, so that the organization of subsection H.9 follows a more logical sequence that begins with internal circulation, then progresses to surrounding alleys and neighboring properties. The recommended amendment will need to be coordinated with the recommended amendment from issue 67 of the August 28, 2008 issue-response memorandum. Staff Recommendation: Page 86, line 10, move subsection e. to follow subsection h., Alleys, and renumber the subsections accordinly. Rename the title of subsection e. to “Cross Access and Joint Access with Adjacent Sites”. Add the following language to the end of the provision on line 12: “Applicants are encouraged to provide shared vehicle and pedestrian access to adjacent

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 21 of 35 properties for convenience, safety and efficient circulation. A shared access agreement running with the land shall be recorded by the municipality, as approved and executed by the director, guaranteeing the continued availability of the shared access between the properties.”

96. Issue: 21.07.090H.10, Dimensions of Parking Spaces and Aisles Staff recommends substantial changes to H.10 to improve clarity, consistency and more systematically address existing municipal practices and common issues that arise. Table 21.07-9 as provided in the 2007 public hearing draft is too long and complex for its purpose. Some of the substantive dimensional standards in the table are questionable. For example, the minimum stall width and overhang for the smallest stall (8’4”) does not match recommended best practice. The table lacks adequate supplementary provisions to elaborate on the meaning and minimum standards of elements such as “interlock reduction”, “overhang allowance” and allowed parking angles. The supplementary provisions did not provide basic traffic engineering-based ground rules for parking space width when abutting walls, fences or structural columns. In general the subsection provides only hit-and-miss coverage of substantive issues that arise with parking space dimensions. Furthermore, the diagram in subsection 10.e (page 89), which is intended to illustrate the spatial relationships of the elements in the table, is overly complicated and does not clearly show some of the elements from the table. The reference letters in the diagram do not match the acronyms or terms in the table, making cross reference impossible. A review of approximately 1-2 dozen zoning ordinances, ITE and ULI handbooks and other literature sources has identified ways to more easily and effectively communicate parking dimensions standards. Most communities use a shorter, simpler table and illustration combined with supplementary code language that elaborates as necessary. Sources such as the ULI 4th Edition “Dimensions of Parking” and the ParkingSpaces manual published by McGraw-Hill provided information on current best practice in parking stall and aisle dimensions and angles.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 22 of 35

Staff Recommendation: Page 86 line 35 through page 89 line 1, amend subsection H.10 as shown below. Replace table 21.07-9 and the diagram in subsection H.10.e (page 89) with the table and illustrations below. 10. Dimensions of Parking Spaces and Aisles The minimum dimensions for parking spaces and aisles shall be as provided in Table 21.07-9 and calculated as depicted in the figures that follow the table. The parking configuration stated in the following table and figures shall apply to all [REQUIRED] off-street parking, except as stated elsewhere in this section.

TABLE 21.07-9: PARKING SPACE AND AISLE DIMENSIONS Curb Space Typical Length Depth Aisle Aisle Parking Bay Parking Space (Width (Vehicle Width Width Width Interlock Overhang Angle Width Projection) Projection) 1-way 2-way (Module) Reduction Allowance 8' 6" 23' 0" 8' 6" 12' 6" 24 41' 0" 0' 0" 0 9' 0" 23' 0" 9' 0" 12' 0" 24 42' 0" 0' 0" 0' 0" (parallel) 9' 6" 23' 0" 9' 6" 12' 0" 24 43' 0" 0' 0" 10' 0" 23' 0" 10' 0" 12' 0" 24 44' 0" 0' 0" 8' 6" 12' 0" 18' 9" 12' 6" 24 61' 6" 1' 6" 9' 0" 12' 9" 20' 6" 12' 0" 24 65' 0" 3' 2" 45 1' 5" 9' 6" 13' 5" 20' 10" 12' 0" 24 65' 9" 3' 4" 10' 0" 14' 2" 21' 3" 12' 0" 24 66' 5" 3' 6" 8' 6" 9' 10" 19' 10" 18' 6" 24 63' 8" 1' 1" 9' 0" 10' 5" 21' 10" 18' 0" 24 67' 8" 2' 3" 60 1' 8" 9' 6" 10' 12" 22' 1" 18' 0" 24 68' 2" 2' 5" 10' 0" 11' 7" 22' 4" 18' 0" 24 68' 8" 2' 6" 8' 6" 8' 10" 19' 7" 19' 6" 24 63' 2" 0' 7" 9' 0" 9' 4" 21' 8" 19' 0" 24 67' 4" 1' 2" 75 1' 11" 9' 6" 9' 10" 21' 9" 18' 6" 24 67' 7" 1' 3" 10' 0" 10' 4" 21' 11" 18' 0" 24 67' 10" 1' 4" 8' 6" 8' 6" 18' 0" 23' 6" 24 60' 0" 0' 0" 9' 0" 9' 0" 20' 0" 23' 0" 24 64' 0" 0' 0" 90 2' 0" 9' 6" 9' 6" 20' 0" 22' 0" 24 64' 0" 0' 0" 10' 0" 10' 0" 20' 0" 22' 0" 24 64' 0" 0' 0"

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 23 of 35

PARKING DIMENSIONS

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 24 of 35

a. Parking Angle Parking angles between 0 and 45 degrees and between 75 and 90 degrees are not permitted, except as approved by the traffic engineer. Angles between 45 degrees and 75 degrees are permitted. The dimensions for such angles shall be calculated by the applicant using a method prescribed by the traffic engineer. b. Aisle Width Where the parking angle differs across a 1-way aisle, the greater required aisle width shall be provided. c. Reduction in Parking Space Depth Due to Interlock Parking space depth (vehicle projection) may be reduced through the use of interlock between angled parking bays as shown in the Parking Dimensions figure. The amount of reduction in the parking space depth shall be as provided in the interlock reduction column of table 21.07-9. The parking angle of the abutting parking bays shall be equal in order to use interlock reduction. d. Overhang Allowance within a Parking Space The maximum overhang allowance shall be as shown in table 21.07-9 and the figures that follow it. The distance between the end of the parking space and the centerline of any curb stop or wheel stop used in the parking space shall

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 25 of 35 be equal to (no greater or less than) the overhang allowance provided in Table 21.07-9. The relationship between the overhang allowance and adjacent required landscaping and pedestrian facilities is established in subsections 21.07.090H.3 and H.6. Surfacing options for the overhang allowance area of the parking stall are provided in subsection 21.07.090H.14.d., Paving. e. Parking Spaces Abutting a Wall, Fence, or Other Obstruction Minimum required parking space dimensions shall be clear of all obstructions, other than wheel and curb stops, and structural columns that meet the requirements of subsection f below. When the length of a parking space abuts a wall, fence, or other obstruction, the required width of the parking space shall be increased by one foot for each side with an obstruction. The parking space angle and dimension requirements shall apply to the inside dimension of a parking space abutting an obstruction. f. Structural Columns A structural column may encroach into the width of a parking space by up to one foot if the column is located within 4 feet of either end of the parking space. Such column shall not be located within 1 foot of a drive aisle. g. Minimum Vertical Clearance A minimum height of fourteen feet shall be maintained clear of obstructions from any parking lot surface to any structure or landscape feature above that may interfere with the safe passage of vehicles. The minimum vertical clearance for a structured parking facility, carport or garage shall be seven feet four inches, except as follows:

i. The minimum vertical clearance for van accessible parking spaces, access aisles serving them, and vehicle routes to the van accessible spaces shall be eight feet two inches.

ii. The minimum vertical clearance for passenger loading zones including vehicular pull-up spaces, access aisles serving them, and a vehicular route between an entrance and exi[S]t and the passenger loading zone shall be nine feet six inches. h. Smaller [COMPACT] Parking Spaces for Low Turnover Uses Reduced [COMPACT] parking space dimensions may be approved by the traffic engineer pursuant to subsection F.22 [F.21] above. i. Recreational Vehicle Spaces Parking spaces for recreational vehicles, if provided and delineated, shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide by 40 feet long.

J. [CALCULATION OF PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS] [THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS DESCRIBED IN TABLE 21.07-9 SHALL BE CALCULATED IN THE MANNER DEPICTED IN THE FOLLOWING DIAGRAM:]

[DELETE DIAGRAM ON PAGE 89 OF PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT]

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 26 of 35

97. Issue: 21.07.090H.11, Snow Storage and Management Subsection a.iv, which addresses snow melt runoff water treatment, does not make clear that melt water flow shall be contained on site or directed to an on-site approved water treatment or infiltration device. Staff Recommendation: Page 89, line 11, add a new second sentence, “Melt water flow shall be contained on-site or directed to an on site infiltration device approved by the municipal engineer.”

98. Issue: 21.07.090H.11.b.i., Snow Storage in Multifamily Developments of Five or More Units The provision leaves a loophole for mixed-use dwellings, which could include large apartment complexes with ground floor or corner commercial establishments. Initial results from Title 21 Economic Impact Analysis follow-up site testing indicate that the snow storage requirement as calibrated in the Public Hearing Draft could impact the size of infill development projects. Staff is double checking the studies that formed the basis for the 20% figure, to ensure that it reflects the actual need. These studies used average annual snowfall and accumulation throughout the winter, stacked 12 feet high. It is not clear if the methodology used accounted for settling and compression of snow over time. Old snow would occupy fewer cubic yards. Research is also under way to see if additional flexibility is appropriate for the snow storage requirement. Staff may come forward with recommended amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

99. Issue: 21.07.090H.14., Paving Several issues have been raised by staff and members of the design community regarding clear and enforceable criteria for exceptions and alternatives to the standard required paving surface. Staff is conducting follow-up research and interviews and may come forward with recommended amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD.

101. Issue: 21.07.090J, Passenger Loading Zones There is an oversight in the draft section in that it does not require an ADA accessible pedestrian route from a required passenger loading zone to the entrance of the use served.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 27 of 35 Staff Recommendation: Page 91, after line 32, add a new subsection 4, Accessible Route, as follows, and renumber the last subsection to become subsection 5, Schools: 4. Accessible Route An accessible pedestrian route to the building or facility entrance shall be provided pursuant to 21.07.090J.8.

102. Issue: 21.07.090L.3, Minimum Number of Vehicle Queuing Spaces Staff is conducting a quality check regarding the minimum number of required queuing spaces for each use in Table 21.07-11, as well as clarity of language, and may come forward with recommended amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

103. Issue: 21.07.090M., Parking Structure Design Standards Staff is conducting a quality check regarding this subsection and may come forward with recommended amendments. Staff Recommendation: HOLD

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 28 of 35 Technical Edits and Clarifications – Section 21.07.090, Off-street Parking and Loading

1. 21.07.090A.3, Off-street Parking and Loading, Purpose (page 63, line 13), delete the word “productive”.

2. 21.07.090B.1.b, Off-street Parking and Loading, Applicability (page 63, line 27), correct the section reference to read “21.07.090G”.

3. 21.07.090B.3 and B.4, Off-street Parking and Loading, Applicability (pages 63, line 37 through page 64, line 16), switch the order of subsections B.3 and B.4.

This change is recommended because the “Use of Required Parking Space” provision establishes the broader, more fundamental requirement as to what parking facilities shall be used for, and so intuitively should come first. “Regulation of Parking Space Use” addresses the appropriate means of control and management of parking facilities, such as hours of operation, control gates, etc.

4. 21.07.090B.4, Off-street Parking and Loading, Applicability (page 64, lines 9-14), clarify as follows: “Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of passenger automobiles by [USE OF] residents, occupants, customers, visitors, or employees of the use. Required parking spaces shall be available at no charge, except that the traffic engineer may approve charges for use of required parking spaces if in a municipally recognized parking district or in the AD, PLI, and PCD zoning districts. Required parking spaces may not be assigned, leased or rented in any way to a use on another site or to anyone who is not a resident, customer, occupant, employee or guest, except for shared parking situations. See subsection 21.07.090F.16[E.7].”

These changes allow the paragraph to more clearly, systematically communicate what are the intended, allowed uses and users of parking spaces that are required by Title 21.

5. 21.07.090C.2, Off-street Parking and Loading, Computation (page 64, line 29), correct the section reference to read “21.07.090F.16”.

6. 21.07.090C.5.a, Off-street Parking and Loading, Computation (page 64, line 43), correct the section reference to read “G.5”.

7. 21.07.090C.5.c.i and c.ii, Off-street Parking and Loading, Computation (page 65, lines 9 and 11), add the word “spaces” after “parking”.

8. 21.07.090C.5.c, Off-street Parking and Loading, Computation (page 65, after line 13), move subsection 21.09.080E.4.c.ii. from page 74 (lines 4-7) to become an additional subsection 5.c.iv. on page 65, and amend the language as follows: “Parking [S]spaces provided as the required parking for a use on another parcel through a municipally approved shared parking or off-site parking agreement[ DO NOT COUNT TOWARD THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES PERMITTED.];

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 29 of 35 This change improves the organizational logic of the Parking section because it places all exemptions from the maximum number of spaces in one place.

9. 21.07.090D.1, Parking Layout and Design Plan, Applicability (page 65, line 17), amend as follows: “…shall submit a parking facility [LOT] layout, circulation and design plan for review and approval by the traffic engineer”.

The word “facility” is the more encompassing term in Title 21. The addition of the word “circulation” enables the deletion of a separate, mostly redundant submittal requirement for a “vehicular circulation plan for all parking lots” from lines 32-34 on page 85. The Off-street Parking and Loading section should establish parking plan submittal requirements in one place, in a comprehensive manner.

Technical edit #33 below deletes lines 32 through 34 on page 85 of the draft code.

10. 21.07.090E.4.a, Maximum Number of Spaces Permitted, Purpose (page 73, lines 19-23), amend as follows: “…and water quality. The maximum is calculated using a percentage increase over the minimum parking requirement. [THE MAXIMUM RATIOS ALLOW A PERCENT OF PARKING THAT IS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE MAJORITY OF AUTO TRIPS TO A SITE BASED ON TYPICAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND.] Exceptions and flexibility procedures are provided where the [A] required limit on the number of parking spaces in Table 21.07-6 is problematic for a certain use.”

11. 21.07.090E.5, Proximity of Parking to use (page 74, line 23), change the title as follows: “Parking Location [PROXIMITY OF PARKING TO USE]”

The revised title clarifies the main point of this essential provision and avoids implying that the provision establishes various distances at which parking may be from the use served.

12. 21.07.090E.5, Proximity of Parking to use (page 74, lines 24-25), amend as follows: “Except as provided in subsection 21.07.090F., all required parking shall be on the same lot [SITE] as the use served. However, required parking may be on an abutting or adjacent lot provided the zoning district in which the lot is located allows for off-street parking as a permitted principal use, site plan review use, or conditional use; in which case, t[.T]here shall be a parking agreement which meets the requirements of subsection F.1. below.”

This edit makes the first sentence consistent with the second, which refers to a “lot” instead of a “site”. A “site” is different from a “lot”. It may include multiple adjacent “lots”. The edit also makes the sentence consistent with its intent and carries forward current practice in administering Title 21, which is to require a parking agreement for the required parking to be on an abutting or adjacent lot from the use.

13. 21.07.090F, Parking Reductions and Alternatives (page 74, lines 30-32), amend as follows: “The traffic engineer and director may approve reductions and alternatives to providing the number of off-street parking spaces required by table 21.07-5, or to the circulation and

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 30 of 35 dimensional standards of subsections H.9 and H.10 below, in accordance with the following standards.

This edit acknowledges that section F provisions for tandem, stacked or small parking spaces are not reductions to the number of spaces but rather alternative parking facility designs.

14. 21.07.090F.1.a, Parking Agreement, Recordation (page 75 line 42 through page 76 line 2), amend as follows: “The municipality [APPLICANT] shall record the parking agreement at the district recorder’s office as a covenant that runs with the land and is binding on the owner and all successors and assigns for as long as the required number of off-street parking spaces is not provided as a result of the parking reduction or alternative. Recordation of the agreement shall take place [AND AN ATTESTED COPY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT] before issuance of an entitlement [A LAND USE PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT] requiring a parking reduction or alternative.”

This change clarifies that the Municipality will record the agreement at cost to the applicant. Assisting applicants in preparing properly formatted agreements and submitting them in a timely manner to the District Recorders Office has proven time consuming and wasteful of staff administrative resources. The term “entitlement” is defined in Chapter 21.14 and makes the last part of the sentence simpler and more comprehensive in its applicability.

15. 21.07.090F.1c, Parking Agreement, Termination (page 75 lines 15-17), amend as follows: “If for any reason the parking agreement terminates, owners and all successors and assigns who are [WERE] parties to the parking agreement shall comply…”

16. 21.07.090F.3.a, Qualifying Site Development, Street Oriented Building (page 75 line 39), change “ground-level” to read “ground-floor”.

17. 21.07.090F.3.d, Qualifying Site Development, Private Open Space (page 76 line 7), amend as follows: “This shall be common private open space in the case of multifamily and mixed-use dwellings.”

This change eliminates an unintended loophole for apartments that happen to be in a building or development that also includes a non-residential use.

18. 21.07.090F.5, Residences in Walking Distance to Downtown (page 76 line 19), amend as follows: “Residential household uses located [NEAR THE DT DISTRICTS AND SPECIFICALLY] north of 15th Avenue…”

19. 21.07.090F.7.a, Residences in Center City Neighborhoods (page 76 line 26), amend as follows: “Residential household uses located in center city neighborhoods…”

20. 21.07.090F.8, Uses Adjacent to Transit Service (page 76 line 42), change “required” to “require”.

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 31 of 35 21. 21.07.090F.9, Rideshare Programs (page 77 line 2), amend as follows: “A nonresidential use is eligible to [FOR A] substitute[ION OF] participation in municipal rideshare programs…”

22. 21.07.090F.9, Rideshare Programs (page 77 lines 6-7), amend as follows: “…in conformance with subsection 21.07.090F.12[13]., Land Bank[ED PARK]ing.”

23. Section 21.07.090F.15, Housing Density (page 78 line 17), amend as follows: “Residential household uses are eligible for a reduction…”

24. Section 21.07.090F.16.c, Alternative Calculation Method (page 79, lines 1-10), amend as follows:

c. Alternative Calculation Method Using Table 21.07-7 For each use sharing the parking facility, calculate the number of off-street parking spaces required for that use in table 21.07-5. Multiply that number across the row for its land use in table 21.07-7, Shared Parking Credit, to determine the typical parking required for that use during the eight time periods. For each time period, add the resulting products for each of the uses sharing the parking. [MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL USE BY TABLE 21.07-5 BY THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE INDICATED IN TABLE 21.07-7, SHARED PARKING CREDIT, FOR EACH OF THE EIGHT DESIGNATED TIME PERIODS. ADD THE RESULTING SUMS FOR EACH OF THE DESIGNATED TIME PERIOD COLUMNS. THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SHARED PARKING SPACES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY TOTALING THE RESULTING NUMBERS IN EACH TIME PERIOD COLUMN.] The column total that generates the highest number of parking spaces then becomes the shared parking requirement. This represents the time period with the highest total parking demand.

This change clarifies the explanation for how to use Table 21.07-7 to calculate shared parking requirements.

25. Section 21.07.090F.17, Off-site Parking (page 80, lines 22-24), amend as follows: “The traffic engineer and the director may approve the location of required parking spaces on a separate lot from [THAT IS NOT ADJACENT TO THE LOT ON WHICH] the principal use [IS LOCATED] if the off-site parking complies with all of the following standards:”

This clarifies that off-site parking provisions apply to and may be used for any parking located on a separate lot from the use it serves, whether abutting, adjacent or further away within the maximum allowed distance.

26. Section 21.07.090F.18, On-street Curb Parking (page 81, lines 5-8): In the first sentence, add a comma on the second line, after the words “property line”. In the second sentence, amend as follows: “Upon approval, each [ONE] on-street curb space may be substituted for one required off-street space.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 32 of 35

27. Section 21.07.090F.21, Other Eligible Parking Reductions or Alternatives (page 81, lines 41- 47), clarify the first sentence as follows: “The traffic engineer and the director may approve any parking reduction or other alternative in addition to the choices above, or that increases the [BY-RIGHT] percentage reduction in any of [FROM] the choices above, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the traffic engineer and the director that the proposed parking management strategy will protect surrounding neighborhoods and[,] maintain traffic circulation patterns[, AND IMPROVE URBAN DESIGN TO] at least the same extent as would strict compliance with otherwise applicable off-street parking standards.”

28. Section 21.07.090G, Table 21.07-8, Off-street Loading Berths (page 82) amend the multifamily use listing in the first row of the table as follows: “Multiple-family and mixed- use dwellings”.

This change ensures that the provision covers residential apartments in mixed-use buildings such as a residential building with a corner store on the ground floor, which the draft code categorizes under a different use type name than “multifamily”.

29. Section 21.07.090G.5, Location of Off-street Loading Facilities (page 84, lines 8-9), amend the last sentence as follows: “Where parking facilities [AREAS] are not allowed between a building and a street, loading berths are also not allowed.”

30. Section 21.07.090G.6., Manner of Using Loading Areas (page 84, lines 11-14), amend as follows: “No loading berth [FOR LOADING OR UNLOADING OF VEHICLES] shall be so located that a vehicle using such loading berth projects into any [PUBLIC] street. Loading berths shall be provided with access to an alley, or, if no alley abuts [ADJOINS] the lot, with access to a street. Any required front, side, or rear setback [YARD] may be used for loading unless otherwise prohibited by this title.”

31. Section 21.07.090H.7.a., Relationship to Buildings, Non-residential Buildings (page 85, lines 3-6), amend as follows: “Parking spaces, [AND]maneuvering aisles and circulation driveways shall be separated from any nonresidential building [ON THE SAME SITE] by a walkway or site enhancement landscaping planting area [LANDSCAPED AREA], or both, at least five feet in width, [NOT INCLUDING VEHICLE OVERHANG AS DEFINED IN TABLE 21.07-9] and allowing for breaks for garage entrances. This provision shall not apply to queuing spaces or drive-throughs.”

The changes above in item 33 and below in item 34 clarify which vehicle circulation areas are subject to the building separation requirement, and clarify the standards for the landscaped separation area. In addition, the prohibition against vehicle overhang into the required landscaping area is removed, as this becomes redundant and unnecessary pursuant to the changes recommended in issue 90 above.

32. Section 21.07.090H.7.b., Relationship to Buildings, Multifamily Residential Buildings (page 85, lines 8-12), amend as follows: “Parking spaces, driveways, and maneuvering [DRIVEWAY] aisles shall be separated from any multifamily residential building façade by

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 33 of 35 a site enhancement landscaping planting area [LANDSCAPED AREA] of at least five feet in width, [NOT INCLUDING VEHICLE OVERHANG AS DEFINED IN TABLE 21.07-9] and allowing for breaks for garage entrances…”

33. 21.07.090H.9., Vehicular Access and Circulation (page 85, lines 31 – 34), delete the second and third sentences and amend as follows: “Parking lots and structures shall be designed for a safe and orderly flow of traffic throughout the site, as provided in the subsections that follow. [PLANS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. APPLICANTS SHALL SUBMIT A VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PLAN FOR ALL PARKING LOTS AND STRUCTURES THAT DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS. SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE EXEMPTED.]”

This deletes redundant and poorly located submittal requirement information. This edit accompanies technical edit #9 above, which adds a circulation plan to subsection 21.07.090D.2., Minimum Plan Requirements (page 65). Subsection D on lines 16-17 of page 65 already exempts single-family and two-family dwellings from parking lot design plan circulation requirements, so it would be redundant to exempt them a second time here. Generally, any parking lot plan submittal requirements should be located in 21.07.090D.

34. 21.07.090H.9., Vehicular Access and Circulation, Key Elements (page 85, line 36), amend as follows: “The parking facility layout, [VEHICULAR] circulation and design plan shall address the following elements: fire lanes, emergency access, drive-throughs, queuing spaces, passenger loading zones [DROP-OFFS], pedestrian circulation[,] and loading berths [AREAS].”

This changes the language and terms to be consistent with other subsections of Off-street Parking and Loading, and more systematically covers the types of facilities addressed in these subsections.

35. 21.07.090H.9.b, Circulation Patterns (Page 85, Lines 41-45), amend as follows: “In order to define circulation and provide better site distance, islands shall be required at the end of each row of parking spaces [AISLE]. Where loading facilities are required… …shall be shown on the parking facility layout, [VEHICULAR] circulation and design plan when required by the traffic engineer.”

36. 21.07.090H.9.d, Dead-End Parking Aisles (Page 86, Lines 7-9), move this provision down to just before subsection 9.h., Alleys, so that it comes after the more general and essential “parking and maneuvering” provisions.

37. 21.07.090H.9.f, Parking Area Entries/Driveways (Page 86, line 17), Add a cross-reference at the end of the provision to the residential driveway width standards in 21.07.100D, as follows: “Driveway entrances to a residential lot shall comply with subsection 21.07.100D, Driveway Width.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 34 of 35 38. 21.07.090H.9.f, Parking Area Entries/Driveways (Page 86, line 17), and 21.07.090H.9.J.i., Ingress and Egress Points (Page 86, lines 30-32). Move subsection 21.07.090H.9.J.i. up to 21.07.090H.9.f, so that it becomes the last sentence in the Parking Area Entries/Driveways provision.

This change organizes all provisions for driveway entrances that reference the municipal driveway standards into one place.

39. 21.07.090H.14.a., Paving (Page 90 lines 32-33), change “traffic engineer” to “municipal engineer”.

40. 21.07.090H.14.c, Paving Alternatives (Page 90 line 43), change the last word to “replaced”.

41. 21.07.090I.2., Passenger Loading Zone Dimensions (Page 91, Line 21), add the words “at least” in front of “20 feet in length”.

42. 21.07.090I.2., Passenger Loading Zone Dimensions (Page 91, Line 25), clarify the section reference at the end of the sentence to read, “21.07.090J.7”.

43. 21.07.090I.4., Schools (Page 91, Lines 34-37), simplify and clarify the language as follows: “Passenger loading zones [DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP AREAS] shall be required for schools (public or private). [DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP AREAS MAY BE ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY DRIVEWAY ACCESS OR AISLE, BUT SHALL BE LOCATED FAR ENOUGH OFF THE ROADWAY SO THAT THEY DO NOT CAUSE TRAFFIC TO STOP.] Length, location and design of the passenger loading zones [DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP AREAS] shall be approved by the traffic engineer.”

44. 21.07.090J.8.a., Accessible Routes, Location (Page 93, Line 13), amend as follows: “…from accessible parking and [ACCESSIBLE] passenger loading zones.”

45. 21.07.090L. Vehicle Queuing Spaces (Page 94, line 19), change “parking area” to “parking facility” to be consistent with Title 21 terminology.

46. 21.07.090L.4.b., Vehicle Queuing Spaces, Design and Layout (Page 95, lines 9-10), change as follows: “Queuing spaces shall [MAY] not impede on- or off-site traffic movements or movements into or out of off-street parking spaces.”

Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 35 of 35