fllsterC ountv

Planning Board
Dennis Doyle, Director

RECOMMENDATION
Carly Winnie
City Clerk
420 Broadway
Kingston, NY 12401

REFERRALNO: 20t7-024
DATE REVIEWÊDz 2/t/20t7

Re: Amend Section 405 Re: Parking -Zoning Statute Amendment

Summary
This is a proposal to amend the City's zon¡ng statute to allow vehicular parking in all residential districts.

The following materials were received for review:
' UCPB Referral Form
Request for an amendment to the Zoning Code from Thomas Tiano, Deputy Chief Building and Safety
Laws and Rules Committee Report

Discussion
The Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) has reviewed the proposed amendment to amend Section 5405-32
of the City's zoning statute to add "vehicle parking" as an allowable use for all residential districts via special
permit.

The UCPB has concerns with respect to this proposal from multiple standpoints as follows:

Completeness
The City has submitted an application that does not include the text of the amendment to the local law to
update the zoning statute. This text at a minimum should cite the authority of the proposed amendment, the
section of the statute to be amended and precisely what is to be amended including specifically the zoning
districts in which the proposed use would be allowed. ln addition, and just as significant, the submittal does
not include any indication, forms, memoranda, or other analysís that illustrates that the Common Council has
met or has the necessary information to address the requirements of State Environmental Quality Review Act
The failure to include both the text ofthe law and the necessary SEQRA documentation leaves the referral
short of meeting full statement requirements of General Municipal law S239-m (c) which states:

"(c) The term "full stotement of such proposed action" shall mean all moteriols required by ond
submitted to the referring body as an opplication on o proposed oction, including o completed
environmentol ossessment form ond oll other moteríals required by such referring body in order to
make its determinotion of significance pursuant to the stote environmentql quolity review oct under
orticle eight of the environmentol conservqtion low qnd its implementing regulations. When the
proposed oction referred is the odoption or qmendment of o zoning ordinance or locol low, "full
statement of such proposed oction" sholl qlso include the complete text of the proposed ordinance or

Telephone: 845-340-3340 Email Address: rlei@co.ulster.ny.us
Fax: 845-340-3429 Web: ulstercountyny.gov/planning/ucpb
2017-024 Amend Secfion 405 RE: Parking
Zoning Sfafufe Amendment
locol law os well as all existing provisions to be alfected thereby, if any, if not olreody in the
possession of the county plonning ogency or regionol plonning council."

Definition of Vehicle Parkins
"Vehicle Parking" is not currently a defined term within the City's zoning statue. Based on the materials
provided, the UCPB is unable to determine whether this proposal refers to all vehicle types, including the
parking of trailers, as well as commercial and industrial class vehicles, or simply to personal, non-commercial
type vehicles. Extending the parking of commercial vehicles that may include oil trucks, semi-trailers, and
other large commercial vehicles would in the UCPB's opinion be severely disruptive of most residential areas.

Citvwide Zonins Statue Update
As called for in the City's "Kingsto n 2025" Master Plan an update/redevelopment to the city's zoning statute
including the implementation of a form-based code is currently underway and nearing the release of its first
draft. As part of the update a thorough analysis of the City's existing parking regulations and their
effectiveness as they relate to the City's actual parking either has been or should have been conducted. As
transm¡tted to the UCPB, the proposal seems more of an ad hoc response than a serious look at how the
parking needs of businesses can be met when buildings and sites are hampered by the availability of an area
to accommodate parking. These situations, which are likely many, and may hamper wanted development and
redevelopment city-wide, deserve a more thoughtful approach than the one paragraph submitted to the UCPB
for consideration. The UCPB sees the need for a broader understanding of how the City will accommodate
parking as part of its efforts to expand business opportunities parking needs while protecting its residential
neighborhoods. One means to accomplish this is to fold in a comprehensive discussion of parking with the
drafting and implementation of the City's new zoning statute.

Links to the Kineston 2025 Plan
Local laws amending a zoning statute should conta¡n both the authority that permits it and the purpose it is
intended to accomplish. Given that the authority to adopt zoning is grounded in such zoning scheme being
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community, the proposed law should specifically identify how
it is consistent with the City's Kingsto n 2025. The materials received by the UCPB for review contain no such
reference,

The UCPB in its review of the Kingsto n 2025 plan with respect to goals for parking found the following:

The Kingston 2025 Plan discusses off-street and on-street parking throughout. No mention, however, is made
to encourage or suggest the development of private parking lots in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore,
Strategy 7.4.1 states:

"The City should consider assembling relevant survey and ownership information for porking resources
throughout the City, but especiolly within the core oreas ond along Broodwoy. The City should pursue
funding opportunities to supplement these surveys as necessary. Wherever possible, the City should
encouroge the shqred use of porking through public/privote parking orrongements thot ollow Íor
public use of porking facilities during off-peak hours. As necessory the City should look to ocquire
odditionol lond at strategic locations throughout the core oreos to provide public porking where
current supply is inadequate."

Given the strategy in the Kingston2025 plan on development of parking areas in the business core and mixed-
use areas the proposed change to allow parking throughout residential areas can been seen as being in
conflict,

"Objective 9,3: Promote increased availability of parking." also tackles the parking issue as follows:

"Strotegy 9.3.7: Mointoin meters ond time limits for on-street pørking ìn the Uptown oreo.

2
2017-024 Amend Secflon 405 RE: Parking
Zoning Statute Amendment
Consider systems, which hove voriable rotes bosed on location and demand os well os alternote
poyment methods to accommodote users most efficiently.

Strategy 9.3.2: lncentivize cross easements between odjacent non-residentiol and mixed-use lots. By
incentivizing cross easements, the City con potentially creote more efficient parking in rear
yords thot could serve the employees of commerciol uses during the doy, with some capocity to olso
serve residentiol in the evenings.

Strategy 9.3.3: lmprove directionol signoge to public parking lots. Public porking lots should be easy to
find, ond preferobly free. A portion of parking con be reserved for employees of locol businesses, ond o
permit sticker could be issued on an onnual or bi-onnuol basis to identify employee's vehicles. (See
Also: UCTC - Uptown Stockade Areo Tronsportotíon Plan)

Strotegy 9.3.4: Promote smorter ond more ottroctive public and privote parking lot design.
Such design should incorporote susta¡noble green infrostructure such os bio swoles, roin gordens, ond
tree planting islonds thot qre not curbed and are designed to receive stormwater. For oreos of lower
troff¡c the use of porous povement, grosscrete, or paving stone should be considered os on alternotive
to asphalt."

ln short, the City's Comprehensive Plan discussion of increasing the availability of parking provides no mention
of providing for parking lots as a primary use in residential neighborhoods. Further review of the Plan finds
references that seek to protect residential streets and encourage development on vacant proprieties. Most
notably:

"Objective 2.4: Maintain and promote traditional architectural form consistent with the existing
neighborhoods, including provision of front porches, short setbacks, and traditional building scales;"
and its associated "Strategy 2.4.1: Develop form-based policies for infill development on vacant lots
to ensure new houses compliment neighboring properties with respect to placement, mass and
orientation to the street".

Such stated objectives and strategies appear to be of higher priority and more in keeping with the City's
special permit standards than the allowance of vehicular parking in residential neighborhoods.

Standards for Develooment
The proposed local law indicates that vehicle parking would be allowed in all residential zones as a specially
permitted use. No standards, such as protection of adjoining residents, number of spaces, light¡ng and
landscaping are included or referenced. As such, this leaves the review of such proposals to the general
Special Permit standards found in 5405-32 including:

"(2) That the proposed use is of such locotion, size ond charocter thot, in general, it will be in hormony
w¡th the oppropriate ond orderly development of the d¡str¡ct in which it is proposed to be situoted and
will not be detr¡mentol to the orderly development of odjøcent properties in occordonce w¡th the
zoning classificotion of such properties.

(3) Thot, in oddition to the obove, in the cose of any use located in or directly odjocent to a residential
district:

(o) The locotion ond size of such use, the nature ond intensity of operotions involved in or
conducted in connection therewith, its site loyout and its relation to access streets shall
be such thot both pedestrion ond vehiculor traffic to and from the use ond the ossembly
of persons in connection therewith will not be hozordous or incongruous with soid
residential district or conflict w¡th the normal traffic of the neighborhood.

3
2017-024 Amend Secflon 405 RE: Parking
Zoning Sfafufe Amend ment

(b) rne bcqtíon ond height of buildings, the locqtion, noture ond height of wolls and fences
ond the noture ond extent of screening ond londscoping on the site sholl be such that the
use will not hinder or discouroge the oppropriote development and use of odjocent land
ond buildings or diminish the volue thereof."

Based on the standards, particularly as it relates to traffíc types and conflicting with the normal traffic of the
neighborhood, it is difficult to see how a private vehicular parking area would maintain the "normal traffic of
the neighborhood" especially during peak use for those parking lots,

The proposed law also does not indicate whether vehicular parking is to be a sole use of the property or could
be used in conjunction with other uses on the property. For example, if allowed in a residential district, could
residences use a portion of their land to host a vehicular parking lot? lssues such as this will need to be
clarified within the law,

Recommendation - Disapprove
The UCPB recommends the proposed law be disapproved at this time. As detailed above, the proposal fails to
meet the full statement requirements for referral; appears to be in conflict with the strategies within the City's
Comprehensive Plan, lacks needed standards and definitions to protect residential neighborhoods; and offers
little insight as to how the City will craft a comprehensive approach to the important issue of parking.

Reviewing Officer

Robert A. Leibowitz, AICP
Principal Planner

Cc: Gio Gagliardi, UCPB
Suzanne Cahill, Planning Director

4